Immigration is like salt…

a small amount of it is pleasant and even has benefits. But too much is deadly.

Take this vat of soup on the stove. Since a teaspoon of salt makes the flavor better, let’s add a cup and make it excellent. No, let’s add 10 pounds and make it heavenly.

What?  Limit the salt?  You must be a racist!

[Inspired by a post by Bruce Charlton.]

About these ads

30 thoughts on “Immigration is like salt…

  1. No, immigration is not like salt.

    High IQ, hard working immigrants make things better.

    Low IQ immigrants who come here to live on welfare, crime, hunting cats and gathering from dumpsters make things worse.

    Large numbers of high IQ hard working immigrants make things a lot better, large numbers of low IQ hunter gatherers make things much worse.

    • You are mistaken. Too many outsiders, no matter how virtuous, are always fatally disruptive.

      True, some outsiders are more inherently disruptive and damaging. But too many of any sort of outsider is bad.

      Update: OK, now I see your point: Some immigrants are damaging even in small numbers. That’s true.

      I suppose I assumed that to be an obvious given, and what needed to be said was that too much even of a good thing is bad.

    • I think its more accurate to say that high IQ immigration is better to a limit, while low IQ immigration is flat out never good.

      In my department we have a pretty stark division on racial lines between the Chinese immigrants and everyone else. Office politics revolves around promoting those from your own ethnic group. And there have been lots of communication and culture problems. It’s definitely a downgrade from the virtually all white place I worked at before.

      True geniuses should always be let in (if you’ve got a +4SD IQ its worth it). And there aren’t that many of them. But I’m less enthusiastic about floods of slightly above average Asians. Some but not to many seems to be what works on that front.

      • My post was an epigram, and epigrams are not intended to be precise.

        But while you do have a point, man is not just an IQ. There are low-IQ virtuous people, and high-IQ monsters. A few low-IQ people could still be a plus.

        I’ll adjust my epigram thus: We can add more of some kinds of seasoning than others, but too much of any seasoning is bad. And the universal limit is low.

    • Charlton is not incoherent. He is brilliantly intuitive, and sometimes his intuitions miss the mark. But his insights are mostly valid. You could learn a lot from him.

      I do disagree with him about what sorts of Christianity are valid. But overall, he’s a valuable ally.

      • Bruce,

        You’re welcome. I’m an intuitive thinker (or at least, I sense intuitively that I am), so I recognize it on others. We reach conclusions that are not strictly implied by what we see, but are true, and are often the most important part of the topic at which we look.

        I would even say that the most important truths are known by intuition: the mind’s ability to know directly, without engaging in formal reasoning. And when, as is common today, these intuitions are formally denied and opposed, mass madness ensues.

        As for the analeptic trance: I sometimes am transported by music into an abstract realm. But it has not happened in many years.

    • Pope Francis is a Marxist. If Christians cannot snipe at each other, what do you do about the slow, or rapid conversion of Christian Churches into progressive megaphones?

      • I will say this, neo-reactionaries and Charlton deserve each other give their incoherent attempts to pass off their favorite parts of modernism as somehow traditional. Maybe this is why Charlton does not like them, to paraphrase one of Charlton’s favorite authors CS Lewis, we hate our own vices the most when we see it in others.

    • > Huh? The same Bruce Charlton who was whining about Christians taking snipes at
      > each other agrees in the comments that Pope Francis is a “Marxist”? What a
      > laughably incoherent thinker Bruce is.

      I don’t think that expressing a thesis about the pope is taking snipes at catholics. I think it is just a clear fact that the pope is very left-wing (although I wouldn’t say marxist necessarily, it could be some other left-wing current), and there is no point in denying it. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, the Catholic church has a large left-wing, specially in south america.

      So are you simply denying that the pope is a left-winger or are you against any discussion about the pope at all? In the later case it makes hard to discuss the subject.

      • So are you simply denying that the pope is a left-winger or are you against any discussion about the pope at all? In the later case it makes hard to discuss the subject.

        Well seeing as though I have engaged in discussion and even criticism of the Pope on this site before I think it is pretty obvious that no I do not wish to shut down all discussion of the Pope.My problem was Chartlon’s unintelligent characterization. There are a number of protestants who don’t tolerate any criticism of their sect.

        As far as the Pope and Leftism is concerned. I do not the think Pope fits neatly in Anglo-American political categories like “right” and “left.” Leftists whether it is conventional Marxists, socialists or social-welfarists seek to bring the same level of material prosperity that right liberals claim the market alone brings. The Pope asking why this should be society’s highest end radically indicts pretty much all of modernity.

      • The Pope substitutes social justice in this world for salvation in the next,making Roman Catholicism a branch of progressivism.

        Whether he is a progressive or a Marxist hardly matters, and it is not all clear how exactly we should distinguish between progressives and Marxists.

      • The Pope substitutes social justice in this world for salvation in the next,making Roman Catholicism a branch of progressivism.

        No he doesn’t, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is nothing more progressive than than the free market libertarianism you espouse Jim.

  2. Mass immigration is disruptive to the host society. So was Christianity to the Roman Empire.
    Perhaps the mass immigration is providential to the global evengelization.

    It is presumptuous to judge the Church. Rather we should let the Church teach and form us.

    • I once heard of a man who was shot in the head five times, but survived, and more or less intact. But that’s no reason to allow ourselves to be shot in the head, on the off chance that it might come out OK.

    • That would be the church so accurately depicted by Dalrock and Sunshine Mary, or perhaps the church currently being transformed into another megaphone of progressivism by Pope Francis.

      I observe that in Russia, where the state is resisting progressivism, or at least lagging official US progressivism by a decade or two, the orthodox church holds out against progressivism, but in the US, it submits

      The church tends to submit to the state. If we submit to the church, we submit to the state.

      And, at present, we have a decadent, corrupt, and decaying state.

      • > The church tends to submit to the state. If we submit to the church, we submit to the state.

        You don’t have to agree 100% with the pastor/priest to a member of a church. And there are lots and lots of churches to choose from.

    • Wine might be a much better comparison, as salt in theology is seen as something very good “salt of the earth”, not to mention that living completely without salt is quite hard. Without wine one can live without problems, and everyone knows what an pathological drinker is ….

      • @Alan Roebuck

        My point is that the message will have a higher rhetorical impact if you use something more neutral-to-negative like wine instead of something ambivalent, which can be very positive or bad, like salt.

      • And also that people that don’t pay attention carefully enough might actually understand the opposite of what you wanted to say: “Hey, he is saying that immigration is like salt! So immigration is good!!!”

      • “Salt of the earth,” yes, but salting the earth is something that was done to eradicate one’s enemies completely. You can also rub salt on a wound, and salting a mine is a way to deceive someone. So salt is a good analogy, but as is true of all analogies, it has its limits.

  3. Pingback: Late Sunday Afternoon Linkage | Patriactionary

  4. I’m sick to death of those (particularly those die-hard, militant lefties) who vilify anyone as racist simply because they believe in the necessity for immigration control. Anything less than a complete open door policy is struck down as xenophobic.

    The analogy between salt and immigration is spot on. Immigrants most certainly add to the richness of any society. But simply taking in people en masse from other cultures and having them live in a land where they have not grown up is, and has shown to be, socially adverse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s