Post by mistermulatto on May 23, 2005 10:28:51 GMT -5
THE MALKINIZATION OF AMERICA
WHAT A SPECTACLE!
By: Paul Fallavollita
A flurry of books have hit American shelves on the pressing need for immigration control including Patrick Buchanan’s The Death of the West, Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation, Joseph E. Fallon’s Deconstructing America, and Canada-oriented Mike Taylor’s The Truth About Immigration. Michelle Malkin joins these ranks with her recent book, Invasion. Many watchers of American politics have likely heard of Michelle Malkin by now. What creates a market niche for Malkin’s tome among these many titles? What’s her secret?
The roots of Malkin’s celebrity are her personal oddity combined with her political conventionalism: she never misses a chance to capitalize on her status as a "pro-American" daughter of Filipino immigrants. It is the same reason why so many conservatives praise Black figures such as Thomas Sowell. There is considerable novelty in those of such backgrounds who espouse even nominally conservative values.
Peter Brimelow has strangely made room for Malkin’s columns at VDARE, a premier immigration control website with a paleoconservative tenor. Apparently immigration reformers believe that it is tactically useful to put a non-white face on their arguments. Malkin’s racial identity as a "minority" provides her with a "get out of jail free" card that protects her from harassment by the liberals.
Malkin may claim that her success (and Teflon) results from her objective talent and not her genetic endowments. However, she focuses on the usual "safe" targets in her columns, taking pot shots at radical environmentalists, for example. In this respect, she is no different than any of the other "approved" Establishment "conservative" writers out there. Her notoriety is solely attributable to the inability of White Americans to openly defend their own turf in their own name. Gripped by a need for external validation and unable to take their own side on any issue, these White Americans eagerly look for non-whites to say the things in defense of Whites that they would feel guilty of saying themselves. This is the reason why Malkin’s book is so well received, while earlier and similar books such as Buchanan’s or Taylor’s are considered suspect or biased. This is the Right’s own internalized version of "affirmative action," and the situation becomes more bizarre when one realizes that the beneficiary of this form of affirmative action—Malkin—claims to oppose affirmative action. Malkin makes it clear in one of her columns that Liddy Dole’s status as a favorite GOP vice-presidential pick stems from Dole’s gender. Malkin needs to look in the mirror when analyzing the relevance of these sorts of unofficial quotas.
Malkin elicits support from many sectors of the Right because Whites feel as though her friendly presence "lets them off the hook." They tell themselves, "Thank God she’s out there saying what needs to be said about the immigration problem, so now we can let her do the work and just point to her as a Filipina in our defense when the liberals whip out the race card on us." Whites are using Malkin to absolve themselves of their natural responsibility to fight their own battles, and to salve their consciences at the same time. They need not feel embarrassed by their cowardice as long as Malkin is there on the beat. What a spectacle, though—a transplanted Filipina pulling America’s chestnuts out of the fire.
Malkin is a dual-use tool far superior to anything found in the aisles of Sears. Just as some paleoconservative immigration control advocates use her for political cover, the neoconservatives also use her for the credence she lends to their "propositional nation" notion.
For example, in a past column, Malkin criticizes Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for his past association with the Ku Klux Klan. She suggests the media grants Byrd a pass on this because he is a liberal, while any Republican who had a similar background would be endlessly hounded and flayed. David Duke is exactly such a Republican, and he frequently mentions his ill treatment at the hands of the media’s "Byrd Double Standard." Yet Malkin never mentions Duke’s name—she keeps her counterexample wholly hypothetical. This is because Malkin still buys into the whole mainstream Establishment taboo-slinging game; she just changes the targets a little, turning the tables around on liberals like Senator Byrd.
Malkin doesn’t think to question the racial taboos of the Left themselves at their most fundamental level and suggest that maybe past generations of Americans knew something we inclusive and tolerant moderns don’t about race relations. She never bothers to ask if maybe David Duke is right, or whether it is possible that Senator Byrd was paradoxically much wiser in his youth than he is in his old age. After all, she can’t do so—it’s not in her personal, familial (she’s married to a Russian Jew), or professional interest.
She clearly supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something even honest libertarians realize is a fatally flawed law that violates both private property rights and the freedom of association. Malkin also penned a hit piece implicitly condemning the eugenics laws of early 20th century America, laws that are first cousins to the 1924 National Origins and Quotas Act, which long enshrined what America’s immigration policy ideally should be. Malkin doesn’t seem comfortable embracing such inspirations from America’s "forbidden" past. Her ideas advocate "assimilation," which remains a problematic concept not much different than multiculturalism since it stems from the ahistorical idea of America as a universal "propositional nation." Malkin’s extolling the virtues of legal immigration is part of the problem, not the solution. An America swamped by Third Worlders who immigrated legally to this country is just as undesirable as an America swamped by undocumented Third Worlders who jumped through a hole in a fence.
Ultimately, the real problem is not Malkin, it’s her supporters on the Right who have abdicated and taken the easy way out. That’s how Malkin got as far as she has. The real problem is pathetic, gutless, and transparent Whites.
Given the choice between the oft-mentioned Balkanization of America and the Malkinization of America, I choose Balkanization since it preserves the chance to re-vivify a true American bio-historical core, from which we can work our way forward.
www.etherzone.com/2002/fall112902.shtml
WHAT A SPECTACLE!
By: Paul Fallavollita
A flurry of books have hit American shelves on the pressing need for immigration control including Patrick Buchanan’s The Death of the West, Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation, Joseph E. Fallon’s Deconstructing America, and Canada-oriented Mike Taylor’s The Truth About Immigration. Michelle Malkin joins these ranks with her recent book, Invasion. Many watchers of American politics have likely heard of Michelle Malkin by now. What creates a market niche for Malkin’s tome among these many titles? What’s her secret?
The roots of Malkin’s celebrity are her personal oddity combined with her political conventionalism: she never misses a chance to capitalize on her status as a "pro-American" daughter of Filipino immigrants. It is the same reason why so many conservatives praise Black figures such as Thomas Sowell. There is considerable novelty in those of such backgrounds who espouse even nominally conservative values.
Peter Brimelow has strangely made room for Malkin’s columns at VDARE, a premier immigration control website with a paleoconservative tenor. Apparently immigration reformers believe that it is tactically useful to put a non-white face on their arguments. Malkin’s racial identity as a "minority" provides her with a "get out of jail free" card that protects her from harassment by the liberals.
Malkin may claim that her success (and Teflon) results from her objective talent and not her genetic endowments. However, she focuses on the usual "safe" targets in her columns, taking pot shots at radical environmentalists, for example. In this respect, she is no different than any of the other "approved" Establishment "conservative" writers out there. Her notoriety is solely attributable to the inability of White Americans to openly defend their own turf in their own name. Gripped by a need for external validation and unable to take their own side on any issue, these White Americans eagerly look for non-whites to say the things in defense of Whites that they would feel guilty of saying themselves. This is the reason why Malkin’s book is so well received, while earlier and similar books such as Buchanan’s or Taylor’s are considered suspect or biased. This is the Right’s own internalized version of "affirmative action," and the situation becomes more bizarre when one realizes that the beneficiary of this form of affirmative action—Malkin—claims to oppose affirmative action. Malkin makes it clear in one of her columns that Liddy Dole’s status as a favorite GOP vice-presidential pick stems from Dole’s gender. Malkin needs to look in the mirror when analyzing the relevance of these sorts of unofficial quotas.
Malkin elicits support from many sectors of the Right because Whites feel as though her friendly presence "lets them off the hook." They tell themselves, "Thank God she’s out there saying what needs to be said about the immigration problem, so now we can let her do the work and just point to her as a Filipina in our defense when the liberals whip out the race card on us." Whites are using Malkin to absolve themselves of their natural responsibility to fight their own battles, and to salve their consciences at the same time. They need not feel embarrassed by their cowardice as long as Malkin is there on the beat. What a spectacle, though—a transplanted Filipina pulling America’s chestnuts out of the fire.
Malkin is a dual-use tool far superior to anything found in the aisles of Sears. Just as some paleoconservative immigration control advocates use her for political cover, the neoconservatives also use her for the credence she lends to their "propositional nation" notion.
For example, in a past column, Malkin criticizes Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for his past association with the Ku Klux Klan. She suggests the media grants Byrd a pass on this because he is a liberal, while any Republican who had a similar background would be endlessly hounded and flayed. David Duke is exactly such a Republican, and he frequently mentions his ill treatment at the hands of the media’s "Byrd Double Standard." Yet Malkin never mentions Duke’s name—she keeps her counterexample wholly hypothetical. This is because Malkin still buys into the whole mainstream Establishment taboo-slinging game; she just changes the targets a little, turning the tables around on liberals like Senator Byrd.
Malkin doesn’t think to question the racial taboos of the Left themselves at their most fundamental level and suggest that maybe past generations of Americans knew something we inclusive and tolerant moderns don’t about race relations. She never bothers to ask if maybe David Duke is right, or whether it is possible that Senator Byrd was paradoxically much wiser in his youth than he is in his old age. After all, she can’t do so—it’s not in her personal, familial (she’s married to a Russian Jew), or professional interest.
She clearly supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something even honest libertarians realize is a fatally flawed law that violates both private property rights and the freedom of association. Malkin also penned a hit piece implicitly condemning the eugenics laws of early 20th century America, laws that are first cousins to the 1924 National Origins and Quotas Act, which long enshrined what America’s immigration policy ideally should be. Malkin doesn’t seem comfortable embracing such inspirations from America’s "forbidden" past. Her ideas advocate "assimilation," which remains a problematic concept not much different than multiculturalism since it stems from the ahistorical idea of America as a universal "propositional nation." Malkin’s extolling the virtues of legal immigration is part of the problem, not the solution. An America swamped by Third Worlders who immigrated legally to this country is just as undesirable as an America swamped by undocumented Third Worlders who jumped through a hole in a fence.
Ultimately, the real problem is not Malkin, it’s her supporters on the Right who have abdicated and taken the easy way out. That’s how Malkin got as far as she has. The real problem is pathetic, gutless, and transparent Whites.
Given the choice between the oft-mentioned Balkanization of America and the Malkinization of America, I choose Balkanization since it preserves the chance to re-vivify a true American bio-historical core, from which we can work our way forward.
www.etherzone.com/2002/fall112902.shtml