People’s brains have completely been broken by trying to fit reality to the small and ridiculously inadequate concept of consent:

Consent matters at every age. Children aren’t toys or possessions, and even newborns deserve bodily autonomy and respect. No religious institution should put tradition above a person’s right to say no.

https://x.com/Lor2ie/status/2113198527295701381

Even within such a short tweet, there is a glaring contradiction. Newborns can’t say anything. The concept of bodily autonomy is the exact opposite of what a newborn feels. The understanding that a child’s body is separate from her mother’s does not happen at birth. It arrives gradually and takes quite a bit of time.

Outside of the newborn stage, parents have two crucial roles:


1. To keep the child alive
2. To socialize her into the culture

Both rules are impossible to fulfill if you predicate them on consent. Mommy can’t play right now because she has to work, do chores, and finish the phone conversation. You have to use the potty, flush after yourself, brush teeth, wash hands, get dressed, pick up your toys, learn to read, and so on. You can’t beat your brother over the head with a toy truck. You can’t throw food on the floor. You have to say please and thank you.

Civilization is a system of limitations on our free will. It’s not simply unnatural. It is actively anti-nature. Nature means relieving ourselves in the middle of the street whenever fancy strikes. Newborns exist in a natural state from which parenting endeavors to extract them for their own good. This process is not necessarily deeply enjoyable for everybody involved. And that is fine. The road to happiness in life doesn’t go through following your every whim. You aren’t going to be happy until you learn to derive joy from doing what you must.

The understanding of reality that is based first and foremost on consent is impoverished and strangely sexualized.

67 responses to “The Poverty of Consent”

  1.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.”

    G.K. Chesterton

    Walnut

    Liked by 1 person

    1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
      oldcowboy3

      Suicidal empathy is destroying Western civilization.

      Like

      1. Col. Potter Avatar
        Col. Potter

        I know you like downvotes to be accounted for, so, briefly: “suicidal empathy???”

        I mean, it’s almost adorable that you take that idea seriously. In fact, you exhibit the zenith of right-wing thought, right up there with chanting “Let’s go, Brandon.”

        We’ve got a lot of work to do…

        Like

        1. Clarissa Avatar

          Brandon hasn’t been a thing for a better part of a decade. My kid was still in diapers during Brandon.

          Oh, the memories. I feel young again.

          Like

          1. methylethyl Avatar

            Modern left: winning hearts and minds through condescension; replacing clarity and policy with smirking.

            Like

            1. Col. Potter Avatar
              Col. Potter

              Okay, I can cop to condescension and possibly a smirk (also making a classic masturbatory gesture with one hand while rolling my eyes).

              Here’s something that might have some more clarity–by assaulting a fundamental human virtue, we excuse and justify xenophobia and the dismantling of necessary social support systems.

              You know what everybody on the blog needs to see (or perhaps revisit if you’ve seen it already)? John Sturges’ 1955 “Neo-western” Bad Day at Black Rock. Still works for today–Robert Ryan is Trump; Spencer Tracy is the “modern left”; Anne Francis is the typical Trump voter; Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine are the various Republican reps, governors, senators, etc. It’s only 81 minutes–worth a look.

              Like

              1. Clarissa Avatar

                I just want to mention that I’m not the one who sexualized the content.

                Like

              2. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “I just want to mention that I’m not the one…”

                So noted. And I’m not the one who chose to deflect by zeroing in on a throwaway line.

                Man, that happens a lot on this blog, doesn’t it? On an earlier thread, I made a specifically conditional statement about ending a violent and corrupt nation state, and I was promptly ripped a new one for supposedly confirming the left agenda—“it took you a while, but you finally said it directly” and “you should have led with ending the nation state.” Which is a valid point IF you stop reading my comment at that point and IF you strip away all context. Which seems to be a very “right” thing to do.

                How about that? I understand the right. I can check that off the bucket list.

                Like

              3. Clarissa Avatar

                I can’t respond to the rest of the comment because I haven’t watched the movie. As for dismantling the welfare systems, I already explained many times and at great length that there is no welfare apparatus without a strong nation-state. You cannot simultaneously want to get rid of the nation-state and want to preserve welfare. There are volumes written about that. This has been studied at great length. You can choose not to access that knowledge, but you cannot expect those of us who have been studying this for over two decades to pretend, for your benefit, that this is not an extremely well-explored subject in social sciences.

                Like

              4. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “I can’t respond to the rest…”

                I’m ALL FOR the nation state. I think I was pretty clear about that. I want the American nation state to not be run by corrupt morons who turn the U.S. into something resembling a cesspit. I want to bring back the GOOD nation state. Republicans, as they operate right now, won’t do that.

                Like

              5. Clarissa Avatar

                There’s no nation-state without borders. You cannot be for nation-state + welfare and simultaneously for mass migration.

                Liked by 1 person

              6.  Avatar
                Anonymous

                Bad Day at Blackrock is a laughable, leftist wet dream in which the FDR Democrat left and Hollywood get to wash their hands clean of the virulent and racist depictions and hysteria they had whipped up against the Japanese and Japanese Americans only a few years earlier. Of course their avatar is a crusading anti-racist war hero, he would not be, and the enemy turned out to be the average American all along. This is why leftist love Hollywood, it’s the only place in the universe where they can be the heroes and where their policies actually work.

                Walnut

                Like

              7. Clarissa Avatar

                Sounds like one of the many projects supported by the Soviets.

                Like

              8. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “Bad Day at Black Rock is a laughable…”

                Walnut, you absolutely need what Spencer Tracy gave to Ernest Borgnine in the movie. I guarantee the quality of life in your neighborhood would skyrocket.

                I’ll stop just short of suggesting you really ought to get what Anne Francis got from Robert Ryan. I have to show some restraint.

                Like

  2. oldcowboy3 Avatar
    oldcowboy3

    LOL, I think that downvoting without explanation within a political blog is completely teats-useless, the equivalent of an empty-headed frown. Dr. Saad’s book goes a long way to explaining the problems plaguing most Western countries. For example, I also have sympathy for refugee women and children, but none for young males that cross several safe countries hoping to milk the wealthier social services of a Western country ;-D

    Like

    1. Peter Avatar
      Peter

      AS a Brit, please also remember to point out the Napoleonic racism of everyone who considers that people crossing the English Channel in small boats are fleeing an unsafe country.
      France is safe, so small boat crossings should be illegal.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Clarissa Avatar

        I particularly love it when people keep repeating that it’s atrocious to send Haitians back to Haiti because Haiti is so dangerous. One keeps wondering who it is that makes Haiti so dangerous, if not Haitians themselves, but this question is never addressed.

        Like

  3. cliff arroyo Avatar

    “I want to bring back the GOOD nation state”

    Define what you mean by that.

    Extra challenge: Do so in terms of exclusion and limitations.

    Like

    1. Clarissa Avatar

      Let’s place bets on the probability of the answer being that a good nation-state lets everybody in who wants to be here and welcomes them gladly.

      On the other hand, let’s not place bets because it’s obvious that that is exactly the answer.

      It is very interesting to me that the things that today’s liberals want the most are precisely the things that are grounded in a complete denial of reality.

      Like

    2. Col. Potter Avatar
      Col. Potter

      “Define what you mean…”

      Jeez, nothing but imperious commands and demands…again. Are we allergic to courtesy on this blog?

      Well, Your Most Excellent Excellency, Your Most Eminent Eminence, let’s see if I can fulfill a command or two.

      First, the good nation state… how can I put this as succinctly as possible…

      No more Trump.

      No more elected and appointed Trump toadies and lickspittles.

      (Someone working in our government should AT LEAST be able to say, for example, that Biden won the 2020 election. AT LEAST.)

      Okay? So no, the good nation state doesn’t happen immediately. But it immediately gets much, much better.

      But I know Your Exalted Excellent Eminence wants more, so let’s get to it…

      Like

      1. Clarissa Avatar

        There is no Trump in Russia. Is Russia a good nation-state? No Trump in Haiti. Is that a good one?

        As a side note, I have to mention that making Trump the yardstick by which you measure the Good and the Bad arrogates an enormous amount of power over your psyche to Trump, and he most certainly doesn’t deserve it.

        Like

        1. Col. Potter Avatar
          Col. Potter

          “There is no Trump in Russia…”

          I can only assume you’re taking the piss with me now. But in case you’re not…

          Russia has its own corrupt and stupid leadership. They are Russian. Haiti has its own corrupt and stupid leadership. They are Haitian. Our corrupt and stupid leadership in America is Trump. He is American.

          Are we going to now argue as to whether or not replacing corrupt and stupid leaders with, say, less stupid and not so corrupt leaders is a good thing?

          And.. have you read Trump’s defense of the vile and despicable Ohio campaign ad? And that’s just our most recent example.

          I don’t THINK you need an imaginary, sub-nursery school level “derangement syndrome “ to just say…something is wrong here.

          Like

      2. Col. Potter Avatar
        Col. Potter

        To continue—

        Immigration, mass migration, etc.

        Come a little closer.

        Let me whisper in your ear.

        It’s a problem.

        It’s been a problem as long as there have been countries.

        So let’s take refusing a shipload of desperate, doomed Jews as being rather bad from an exclusion standpoint.

        Let’s take letting everyone in and out all wlly nilly as rather bad from an inclusion standpoint.

        (I might hum along to Lennon’s “Imagine” on occasion, but I don’t find it to be a practical model.)

        So, something in between those two extremes, maybe?

        We need to vet newcomers. We need to punish the ones who skip steps, BUT, we also need to temper justice with mercy when appropriate. We’re not going to get that just right, ever. The numbers are too great. But if there’s any positive movement cement forward, it has to begin with and include common ground.

        How do we help the deserving, determine what’s best and what indeed is possible for our own country, and find and deport those who are not deserving?

        It would be nice if part of that common ground could be, let’s not blithely kill children, bystanders, or anyone while giggling about how it’s just like a video game. Guess we’re not there yet.

        Like

        1. cliff arroyo Avatar

          “Let’s take letting everyone in and out all wlly nilly as rather bad from an inclusion standpoint.”

          Immigration policy is, above all, about exclusion not inclusion. Let’s take one specific case. It has been revealed that Somalis in Minnesota have been involved in massive levels of fraud, absorbing large amounts of taxpayer money by dishonest means.

          In light of this, should US immigration policy towards Somalis:

          a) be increased so that more Somalis can move to the US?

          b) remain unchanged?

          c) be tightened up?

          d) be drastically reduced?

          e) be stopped?

          Like

          1. Col. Potter Avatar
            Col. Potter

            Cliff, I’ve lived a long freaking time. Probably a shade longer than I would have liked. But one thing I learned was the difference between a fraud problem and an immigration problem.

            From what I can tell, the frauds have been punished. That’s usually the best thing to do when someone commits a crime. And in the meantime, regarding Somali immigrants, let’s add a vetting question; hey my dude, thinking of perpetrating any fraud on your way toward becoming a citizen?

            Silly question, isn’t it? And now I think you have your answer.

            Like

            1. cliff arroyo Avatar

              “difference between a fraud problem and an immigration problem”

              So… you’re answer is a or b. There should be no connection between how a particular immigrant group behaves and policies toward that group.

              “thinking of perpetrating any fraud on your way toward becoming a citizen?”

              Where do you think I’m trying to become a citizen?

              Like

              1. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “So… you’re answer is a or b…”

                I think you’re looking for “your answer is a or b,” Big Guy.

                “There should be no connection between how a particular immigrant group behaves and policies toward that group.”

                Well, kind of like not all Japanese folks attacked Pearl Harbor…? When you start using phrases like “how a particular immigrant group behaves,” you’ve got a much bigger problem than immigration.

                Like I said, Cliff–I’ve lived a long freaking time.

                Like

  4. cliff arroyo Avatar

    OT: The Eastern European food pyramid.

    🇺🇦Julia Pod 🇺🇦 (@Jpod_art) ·

    Famous cabbage pyramid 😳 pic.twitter.com/4JyT8A0ruq

    View on X

    Like

    1. Clarissa Avatar

      As my child often says, “Mommy, can I eat this cabbage with kapustka on the side?”

      Kapustka is, of course, pickled cabbage. Often, I eat three different preparations of cabbage simultaneously.

      I’m saying this so that people understand that you are not making a joke but describing reality with this comment.

      Like

      1. cliff arroyo Avatar

        “Kapustka is, of course, pickled cabbage”

        Do you drink the juice from it? If you think you might be coming down with a cold it really hits the spot. A friend had massive cravings for it while recovering from covid.

        Like

        1. Clarissa Avatar

          It’s also reportedly great for hangovers. As well as the liquid from pickled cucumbers

          Like

  5. cliff arroyo Avatar

    “not all Japanese folks”

    Why are all your examples 80 years old? Policies based on WWII or earlier won’t work in the modern world.

    Under what circumstances would you support drastically restricting immigration from a particular country?

    Like

    1. Clarissa Avatar

      In more recent news, have you guys heard about El Salvador and Haiti? That’s a fascinating development. Has everybody heard about the conspiracy theories that lefties are releasing about it?

      Like

      1. methylethyl Avatar

        Not a peep. There’s a conspiracy about El Salvador and Haiti?

        I’d like to gripe about internet silos, but then I spend probably a tenth of my time on any particular platform muting obvious bots and crazies, so then I can’t complain if I successfully rid my newsfeed of the crazy…

        Like

        1. Clarissa Avatar

          Poor lefties only have one conspiracy theory and they apply it to everything.

          The conspiracy is that Bukele was appointed president of El Salvador by the CIA as a representative of drug cartels. Now the CIA is invading Haiti under the guise of Salvadoran troops. It’s all done at the behest of Trump who is owned by the drug cartels.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. methylethyl Avatar

            Wow, that’s… special.

            Like

          2. cliff arroyo Avatar

            “Poor lefties only have one conspiracy theory”

            Does the whacko right have more? the conspiracy community is basically a horseshoe where they agree that NATO and the CIA are responsible for everything bad in the world.

            Like

            1. Clarissa Avatar

              True. The fantasy of the all-powerful CIA is soothing to them, so they keep it alive in spite of mountains of evidence that the CIA is not very effective at all.

              Like

            2. methylethyl Avatar

              “Does the whacko right have more”

              Yes and no. All conspiracy theories are sort of the same in that they grow out of a desire to simplify and impose order on a chaotic world where we all have access to way too much information about nearly everything, and nothing really makes sense, combined with the ego-inflating allure of seeing yourself as an insider: somebody with secret knowledge not available to everybody (which is funny because they always seem to assemble it from… publicly available info). It turns the powerlessness of “There’s a lot going on and I don’t understand most of it” into “Somebody’s running this whole show, and it all traces back to that person/organization/secretsociety somehow.”

              Within that framework, there are a lot of fun schizoid flavors: The Jews run everything, the Illuminati run everything, Soros runs everything, the rich and powerful are all pedo cannibal lizard people, it’s definitely aliens/demons/antichrist, the CIA is running everything, and of course the euconspiracy theory that is Q: everything’s run by adrenochrome junkies but Trump an his Holy Cavalry are going to swoop in and defeat the evil hordes any minute now if we just Trust the Plan hard enough. I’m sure I’ve missed a few.

              As much as mental illness diagnoses cluster on the political left, delusions of grandeur/reference/persecution (what those have in common is an extreme overestimate of how important one is) seem pretty evenly distributed. I’d love to see actual data on that, though, and I’m curious how big a role drug use (licit and illicit) plays. Personally have watched Adderall and a network-news fixation drive someone to spend a couple of years writing an immense and illegible manuscript for a unifying Big Theory of Everything which the author was totally convinced was a brilliant masterwork that would be reviewed in all the major publications: NYT, WSJ, broadcast interviews, the works. Wasn’t, AFAIK, a Big Ideas/Big Dreams person before the drugs. Can’t help wondering how common that is, given how many people are on amphetamines these days: alertness and focus at the expense of your connection to reality. Whee.

              Like

    2. Col. Potter Avatar
      Col. Potter

      “Under what circumstances would you support…”

      My answer to that question seems really, really important to you there, Cliff. Maybe I should charge for it.

      Medical and contagion issues. If I can come up with another, I’ll send it along.

      Also, policies based on World War II…? That wasn’t a policy. That was a timeless observation about human beings. If the Japanese ones are too old, how about not all of Islam hit the Towers and the Pentagon? How about not all Somali are frauds? How about not all men are rapists? How about not all Christians hate trans folks? I could go on considerably longer.

      I don’t have all immigration answers. If I did, I’d apply for a job in that field. I believe, however, that any idea is a nonstarter if you don’t start with the proposition that immigrants are people. Good people, bad people, damaged people, brilliant people, silly people… you treat them that way. And sometimes they will do wonderful things. And sometimes they’re going to suck. You encourage the good ones and punish the bad.

      And that, O Most Excelling Excellency of all that is Excellent, is all I’ve got.

      Like

      1. cliff arroyo Avatar

        Who is saying all Somalis are frauds? Not me.

        But it’s hard to look at Somalis in any country and claim much in the way of success… they’re a known quantity and most of what’s known is negative. You either take that into account in devising immigration policy regarding them or you form policy in a state of optimistic ignorance of reality.

        See the current state of France for what happens when you ignore reality while opening up borders.

        And the real problem is that immigration fuels human trafficking networks that are awful beyond all imagining. It’s not the pre WWII world where international travel is difficult (which was an excellent filter for generally better immigration policy).

        Trying to maintain open doors also empowers the organized crime networks.

        Like

  6. Col. Potter Avatar
    Col. Potter

    “Who is saying all Somalis are frauds?…”

    Interesting that of all the examples I listed, you jumped on that one. It’s a little like the classic exchange:

    “You sir, are nothing more than a fraud, rapist, pedophile, alcoholic butt-sniffer.”

    “I am most certainly NOT an alcoholic!”

    Also, U.S. borders haven’t been “open” since at least the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. (One can go back farther with restrictions on certain countries.) Trump did not “close” the borders because, again, they weren’t open. Vetting, deporting, patrolling—all very much in force. So, yes, I return to reality every now and then, if only as a tourist.

    Organized crime? You’ve just proven that organized crime is bad. Human trafficking? Well done, you’ve also proven that human trafficking is bad. I can’t wait to see what you with 2 + 2 and whether or not water is wet.

    But, as I said earlier, there are immigration problems that require immigration solutions. Organized crime requires organized crime solutions. Ditto human trafficking. Now do these things sometimes overlap? Why yes, yes they do.

    (Who wants to bet that’s the only sentence that will get a response?)

    …And when they do overlap, then you problem solve accordingly, taking into account multiple problems across multiple areas. It’s not so easy. If there’s another way to tackle this stuff, I’m open to ideas.

    However, your speech about the Somalis…? You don’t have to be embarrassed; I’m embarrassed for you. Somalis are a known quantity…? Poor record of success…? As the younger folks say, SMDH.

    Because you know what? I could randomly swing a dead cat anywhere on earth and hit at least 3 of you. You rib me for using 80-year-old references, but you and your ilk have had nothing new to say since Og beat up Tumtuk back in the Stone Age because Tumtuk had darker skin. Nothing changes. The question remains, what gain is there in behaving that way? What will it, and what has it ever accomplished?

    With respect to immigration problems, there are probably all kinds of possible solutions that might hit or miss. With blanket bigotry, you seem to wish to cling to the one response that has never, can never, and will never work.

    Like

    1. methylethyl Avatar

      So… how long were you in a coma for?

      Like

      1. Clarissa Avatar

        That’s why I never have any discussions with liberals anymot. A discussion on absolutely any topic whatsoever will lead to two results pretty much immediately:
        1. Your liberal opponent will deny the most obvious aspects of reality and will try to get you into the quagmire of debating whether water is wet.
        2. The liberal opponent will accuse you of being a hateful bigot who wants to murder people.
        It’s always that. It’s never anything else. Water is dry, and if you deny it, it’s because you’re preparing a genocide.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Col. Potter Avatar
          Col. Potter

          Absolutely none of which I did. But more on this later.

          In the parlance of this blog, I’d like to ask an honest question. And it’s not a “gotcha!” question as I have been subjected to more than once.

          What do you think makes the myth of liberals wanting open borders so powerful?

          Because it is a myth—one of the biggest the right has regarding the left.

          I’m sure some far left brethren might want to try the “imagine there’s no country “ thing. But most of us want strong borders maintained with compassion. But not open.

          I have roughly drawn, with historical references and examples, the “open” border evolution. With clarity. With facts. If you wish, I can provide more; I’ve never been afraid of homework. But none of the dems have opened the border. The “evidence” you and others see is not the result of an open border. Like I said, I’ll slip you a link or two if you want.

          Like

          1. cliff arroyo Avatar

            “What do you think makes the myth of liberals wanting open borders so powerful?”

            What myth? I’ve been trying for _years_ to get liberals to articulate what kinds of restrictions they think are appropriate in immigration policy with a %99.99 failure rate.

            If you can’t articulate what countries you do and don’t want immigrants from then you’re a de facto open borderist.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Col. Potter Avatar
              Col. Potter

              “What myth? I’ve been trying for _years_ to get liberals to articulate what kinds of restrictions they think are appropriate in immigration policy…”

              Why?

              At any rate, this is a two-part response. Part One will show why “open borders” is indeed a myth, at least for the U.S. (And a really, really powerful one based on the responses here.)

              Part Two will demonstrate why quibbling over which American president was “better on the border” is, well, kind of rubbish.

              Part One:

              From 1789 till the end of the 19th century, American had open borders. This is the only time period in America where we can honestly say, yup, they were open. Anyone from around the world could arrive, live, and work in the U.S. with no immigration paperwork.

              We began making targeted restrictions in 1875 with The Page Act. This excluded people who were “undesirable”–East Asian laborers, prostitutes (or suspected prostitutes), and convicted criminals.

              In 1882 we tried our hand banning a specific nationality from entering the U.S., the Chinese Exclusion Act. Here it might be worth noting that when I pointed out bigotry in your proposals before, it wasn’t necessarily a “don’t be a bigot because that makes you bad” item (or, as Clarissa rather colorfully extrapolated, that it was “don’t be a bigot because that means you’re gearing up for a genocide”), but rather, don’t use bigoted policies because they don’t work. The Chinese Exclusion Act was, among other things, just plain silly. Exclusion acts tend to look silly when you need the people you’re excluding as your allies, for example.

              In 1891, we established Federal control over immigration–something that had been taken on by individual states in many cases. This act also authorizes the deportation of unauthorized and excludable immigrants.

              Okay, now we’re just about in the last 100 years: the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, the end of broad European open borders (that is, broadly letting Europeans in). We decided to try quotas: 2% of the total number of people of each nationality already residing in the U.S. as of the 1890 census. This gave Western and Northern Europeans a great advantage, Southern and Eastern Europeans a great disadvantage, and banned Asian immigrants completely (we’re still operating under the Chinese Exclusion Act, remember).

              The Great Depression! Under the auspices of the newly formed Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1933, we decide that if we want more jobs for our “natural-born” American citizens, we need to get rid of the Mexicans. We deported over a million Mexicans (about 60% were American citizens), and we called it “repatriation.” The result–INCREASED unemployment for the “natural” citizens. Like I said, kids, forget the lack of morality in bigotry–it’s just that laws and procedures based in bigotry don’t freaking work. Words to the wise from your Uncle Colonel Potter.

              Let’s jump past WWII and get to the early 1950s… eugenics and nationalism are becoming less popular as justifications to restrict immigration, but we still wanted things kind of White. With the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, we came up with four preference catagories and many of the nonimmigrant visas that are still in use today. Still favored Europeans, but we felt strongly enough about it to override Truman’s veto.

              Civil Rights and the 1960s finally kicked the butt of eugenics and we’re ready for reform! Unfortunately, we didn’t find a suitable substitute for the earlier Bracero program (guest workers), so… yeah, more illegal immigration. We removed racial restrictions, acted to accommodate refugees in 1980. Then Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and we’re in the 21st century.

              With no open borders. Because remember, we ended those in 1875. Stated clearly, with facts.

              This concludes Part One. Part Two to follow.

              Like

              1. Clarissa Avatar

                My friend, I’m still not over the strange idea you advanced yesterday that Somalis engage in fraud because they have “darker skin.” With this fixation on skin color in a discussion where nobody else brought it up, I would stay away from accusing other people of bigotry.

                Like

              2. Clarissa Avatar

                As for Trump ending the open borders, this is what we’re referring to.

                “Illegal border crossings dropped to a 55-year low during the current Trump administration, plunging by about 95% compared to peak levels under the previous administration.

                Key Changes in Border Crossings

                • Historic Lows: U.S. Border Patrol and federal agencies reported roughly 238,000 to 444,000 migrant encounters in fiscal year 2025—down drastically from over 2 million encounters in prior years. By mid-2026, daily apprehensions dropped to around 32 per day in sectors like Del Rio, with some locations seeing only single-digit daily attempts”

                You are welcome.

                Like

              3. cliff arroyo Avatar

                “the lack of morality in bigotry”

                “eugenics and nationalism are becoming less popular as justifications to restrict immigration”

                You seem to have created a narrative in your mind that any opposition to unrestricted immigration is motivated by immorality.

                Here’s a thought: People can disagree with you on moral grounds. The purpose of government is not to create new residents or citizens but to protect the rights of existing citizens. Sometimes restricting or ending the flow of people from certain countries/regions is the best way to do that.

                Like

              4. Clarissa Avatar

                I can only repeat that we can have the nation-state and all the good things that it brings (welfare, worker rights, a middle class, etc.), or we can have the Biden-era immigration policies. Having both things at once is impossible. I can respect a person who says, “Okay, to hell with the middle class, to hell with welfare. I’m okay with most of the country turning into a favela because I think it’s moral to have restricted migration, and that’s all there is to it.” I don’t agree, but I can respect this position because it’s logical and consistent. What I can’t respect is the intellectual dishonesty of insisting that you can have both. What I don’t respect is supporting policies that immiserate working people and destroy worker rights under the guise of heightened morality. Mass migration is the most capital-pleasing policy on offer. You think that the freedom of capital to dispose of workers at will and keep around a gigantic, easily transportable underclass is great? Ok, whatever. But don’t call yourself moral if that is what you support. It’s particularly immoral to support this when you are in your 60s, and it’s the younger generations who are going to be robbed in service of you being able to preen over your supposed morality.

                Liked by 1 person

              5. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                I can always count on you to miss the point, Cliff. No worries. Part Two is coming.

                Like

              6. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “I can only repeat that we can have the nation-state…”

                The intellectual dishonesty is your invention, and your misreading of my VERY clear, factual posts. You will see your mistake when I finish Part Two–why Presidential control of immigration is pretty much bunk.

                Like

              7. Clarissa Avatar

                I’m flattered that you ascribe the intellectual ownership of these ideas to me. But I cannot take credit. This is a very well-studied subject in social sciences, and I can recommend some readings if you want a good entry point into these ideas.

                I suggest starting with the book titled “The Shield of Achilles” by Philip Bobbitt. It looks impossibly long, but you only need the first half. Bobbitt is a lifelong Democrat, so you can’t object to him on ideological grounds.

                After you’re done with Bobbitt, please read the book titled “Liquid Modernity” by Zygmund Bauman. Bauman was a Marxist, so again, I’m not recommending any right-wingers here. After that, you should pick up the book “Neoliberal Culture” by Patricia Ventura and the book “Leftism Reinvented” by Stephanie Mudge. Both these scholars are very left-wing, too.

                I can suggest many more readings after that, but these are the basic ones. They are all very good, well written, and very enjoyable. At the very least, you will find out that criticism of neoliberalism was most certainly not invented by me.

                Like

              8. Clarissa Avatar

                I’m flattered that you ascribe the intellectual ownership of these ideas to me. But I cannot take credit. This is a very well-studied subject in social sciences, and I can recommend some readings if you want a good entry point into these ideas.

                I suggest starting with the book titled “The Shield of Achilles” by Philip Bobbitt. It looks impossibly long, but you only need the first half. Bobbitt is a lifelong Democrat, so you can’t object to him on ideological grounds.

                After you’re done with Bobbitt, please read the book titled “Liquid Modernity” by Zygmund Bauman. Bauman was a Marxist, so again, I’m not recommending any right-wingers here. After that, you should pick up the book “Neoliberal Culture” by Patricia Ventura and the book “Leftism Reinvented” by Stephanie Mudge. Both these scholars are very left-wing, too.

                I can suggest many more readings after that, but these are the basic ones. They are all very good, well written, and very enjoyable. At the very least, you will find out that criticism of neoliberalism was most certainly not invented by me.

                Like

              9. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “My friend, I’m still not over the strange idea…”

                Clarissa, you’re right about this. When I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong. Irrespective of my intended point, what I said was racist. And you gave me two outstanding anti-racist lectures to call me on it, and you were 100% right. Indeed, those were probably the best anti-racist lectures I’ve ever heard. You might well consider giving such lectures as a side hustle.

                (Also, since you seem to dread getting such lectures if the “left” were to take over, this should show you that there’s really nothing to dread. I took both your lectures–not sure if you’re planning on more–and my soul or spirit or whatever isn’t crushed or sacrificed. )

                And this is a great reminder to me to watch myself. I don’t mind saying, Clarissa, I’m on a high right now. A massive freaking high–I don’t know how it will end or what that will look like but I am sailing through the atmosphere (not medically induced… that I know of).

                And why am I on a high? Because I’m trying to save the goddamn country. I’m voting for my family. I’m voting for my daughters and my son. They see our country for what it is, no prompting from their parents. And this is my way of saying, yes, Republicans are horrible, yes, Trump is evil, yes, we’re in an awful spot. But there is hope. We can deliver light.

                And while I’m thinking (and acting) on all this high-minded stuff, I can forget what a flawed f*ck-up I am. But even a flawed f*ck-up can light a candle. I must light a candle. There is no other choice.

                Like

              10. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                PART TWO, BABY! YEAH!

                (And yes, I actually just shouted that out loud. My colleagues are curious.)

                Okay–Let’s examine Trump’s triumph closing the Southern border (I’m letting the “open/close” vocabulary stand for now, although, with clarity, accuracy, and honesty, I shredded that myth to pieces), and let’s look at Biden’s costly border mistakes from 2021-2023. Because that’s something left and right can agree upon, right?

                WRONG! ERRONEOUS! (Yes, I just shouted that, too.)

                The Biden-era spike in border crossings start before Biden takes office. And it ends before he leaves.

                Wait, what? Are you sure about that…?

                Let’s check the timeline. (I’ll provide a link below.)

                The spike in arrivals at the southern border starts in 2019. Take a moment and think about who was President. And not only 2019 but right after the asylum restrictions and family separations. May 2019: more than 100,000 border apprehensions for the first time in over 10 years.

                And when does the spike end? I’ll bet you guessed–2024. Monthly apprehensions fall from roughly a quarter million to about 50,000–they fell still further in 2025, but most of the decline: under Biden.

                So am I saying Biden was a more effective border president?

                NO! (Yup, shouted again.)

                That was just the Turn, kids. Now comes The Prestige.

                The most prominent, and even Draconian, enforcement actions of the last decade, from Obama to Trump to Biden and back to Trump… not a heck of a lot of immediate effect.

                Because…

                Border policy does not drive migration.

                MIGRATION DRIVES BORDER POLICY.

                Go to your windows, kids, open them, and shout it, SHOUT IT:

                MIGRATION DRIVES BORDER POLICY.

                All kinds of things can drive the migrants–high demand for specialized employees? Violence and drought? And once a route becomes accessible…

                So the border thing? A big mistake is to give too much blame and/or credit to Biden and Trump.

                So let’s review: what’s the relationship between migration and border policy?

                Say it with me, kids–hell, find a way to sing it:

                MIGRATION DRIVES BORDER POLICY.

                Clarity and facts.

                Let’s give it up for Adam Cox, David Hausman and Mary S. Hoopes. Here’s the story, plus handy graphs regarding the timelines:

                https://www.justsecurity.org/130422/fact-check-trump-border-policy/

                Quod erat demonstrandum.

                Q.E. Motherfucking D., baby!

                That’s the fact, Jack, you’re welcome…

                Potter out!!!! (and yes, screamed in public. Time to cry for about 15-20 minutes because this was so goddamn beautiful, and then give myself a cookie.)

                Like

              11. Clarissa Avatar

                Leaving aside the exclamations and the drama, yes, it’s very well-known that Trump betrayed all of his promises on immigration in his first term which is why his voters didn’t turn out in 2020 and didn’t reelect him. It’s also a well-known fact that Biden realized how badly his immigration policy was hurting his party and dialed it down right before the election. This is the same reason why Kamala clumsily tried to pretend she’s a moderate.

                None of this changes the fact that there are next to no crossings now, catch and release was ended by Trump, and there have been 3+ million deportations.

                Like

              12. Col. Potter Avatar
                Col. Potter

                “Leaving aside the exclamations and the drama . . . “

                What do you mean, “leaving aside”? I am the exclamations and the drama.

                And thank you for the book recommendations. Could be refreshing.

                Like

      2. Col. Potter Avatar
        Col. Potter

        A coma, huh? Wow.

        Going forward, I shall not be reading or responding to your posts. I’m sure your contributions are fine for the culture of the blog, but not for me, thanks.

        Like

    2. Avi Avatar
      Avi

      @ Col. Potter

      The imprisonment of Japanese-Americans has almost nothing to do with the current debates on immigration policies. Japanese-Americans internees included second and even third generation US citizens. They were considered potential enemy agents on account of their national origins, just as German and Austrian citizens in Britain during both WWI and WWII, or, conversely, British citizens in Germany and Austria during the same wars.

      As to your claim that US borders could not have been closed by the Trump administration because they were never open, it really defies all imagination, given the massive evidence available from a variety of sources proving that under the Biden administration huge numbers of illegal aliens entered the country through both the southern border with Mexico and the northern border with Canada. Even without looking at the plentifully available evidence, the increasing presence of a massive influx of newcomers was felt by all Americans living in cities and areas where constant surges of arrivals could be seen on the very streets, as well as in other parts of the country.

      From what you write, you seem to consider immigration something impossible to stem if not something good on the whole, rather than a necessary evil or a phenomenon that coutries should have the right to control or limit, or even prevent, if necessary.

      I live in Europe, so I shan’t presume to teach anything to a US citizen such as you are, but I remember that in my country, during the stringent Covid lockdowns that characterised many European nations, illegal immigration was reduced to almost zero. That proved to me that where there is a serious will to attack and contain a human phenomenon such as immigration, this can be done, and done demonstrably successfully, given that for over eighteen months borders were patrolled and checked and locked with a vengeance unknown till then.

      It is a real pity that you, as a liberal, cannot see that the wildly illegal and basically unregulated immigration that is sweeping across Western countries at the moment, and has for the past fifteen years at least, is most detrimental to those categories of people that you, like other liberals, at least nominally, most vociferously defend, namely the poor, the legal immigrants and all people in the lower socio-economic strata of society.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Clarissa Avatar

      It is very distasteful to blame the extraordinary levels of dysfunction in Somalia and equally extraordinary levels of corruption in migrant communities of Somalis on “darker skin.” Please do not do that. We don’t normally get together here and debate skin tones.

      It’s fascinating that people who accuse others of bigotry are the ones most likely to lead with the proposal to measure skin tones.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
        oldcowboy3

        Yes Kid, , the concern is not race but culture.

        Like

        1. Clarissa Avatar

          Exactly. I’m Ukrainian. We are very white. As a result of many different things that are beyond the current subject of discussion, we now have a whole bunch of Ukrainians in my church. And guess what? It’s not as great as it used to be. People bring their culture with them.

          Like

    4. cliff arroyo Avatar

      “Somalis are a known quantity…? Poor record of success…?”

      Most countries have decided it’s mean and conservative to track immigrant results by country… so there’s not a lot of data. The few countries that do track by country of origin (and/or first generation immigrants) do not paint a portrait to be proud of…

      Emil Kirkegaard (@KirkegaardEmil) ·

      Crime rates by national origin in Denmarkhttps://t.co/L3njOeI5cr pic.twitter.com/XtiULNgJLL

      View on X

      Or here for Norway not that the second chart distinguishes Somalis born elswhere and born in Norway (norskfodt). Still shakin’ your head?

      Jon Helgheim (@HelgheimJon) ·

      In Norway's capital, Oslo, immigrants from certain countries are heavy overrepresented in crime statistics. For every 1,000 male Somali residents aged 15 to 24, there are a staggering 2,120 charges. In terms of violence and abuse, African immigrants in same category are… pic.twitter.com/4SbcwmFlqf

      View on X

      Liked by 1 person

  7. oldcowboy3 Avatar
    oldcowboy3

    LOL, are you really trying to suggest that first cousin marriages does not lead to a decline in cognitive performance ;-D

    Like

  8. cliff arroyo Avatar

    “MIGRATION DRIVES BORDER POLICY”

    As has been said many times in many languages… it takes two to tango.

    I live in Poland and at present, the Belarusian government for a few years now has been flying in middle easterners on ‘tourist’ visas robbing them and then pointing them toward the Polish border (which has been reinforced with a fence).

    Through consistent enforcement pressure on the Belarusian border has been reduced to very little… in this case migration drove policy to stop being a migrant route. Had it chosen to let people in (most of whom wanted to go to Germany) the flow would have simply increased.

    In the modern world (not in the grand old days of Ellis Island) when you let in one person you’re motivating two more to give it a try.

    Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) ·

    We want to go Poland, but they won’t let us.

    They said if I go to Poland they will hit me, or they will kill me,

    says an illegal migrant at the Belarus-Polish border. pic.twitter.com/lD3dJzDbip

    View on X

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

A conservative literary critic and college professor