The deadly behavior of one more paranoid lunatic seems to have more to do with the unprecedented widespread enabling of violent fantasies, social isolation and the breakdown of mental health treatment in this country than any policy agenda.
That said, fear of immigrants runs in generational cycles. The 1924 legislation - strongly suppo…
The deadly behavior of one more paranoid lunatic seems to have more to do with the unprecedented widespread enabling of violent fantasies, social isolation and the breakdown of mental health treatment in this country than any policy agenda.
That said, fear of immigrants runs in generational cycles. The 1924 legislation - strongly supported by American labor - severely restricted the entry of non-Nordic persons. Not coincidentally, labor, freed from low wage competition, enjoyed its golden age in succeeding decades. After forty years, 1965 legislation loosened the barriers. So here we are again.
"Replacement" theory was simultaneously bolstered by the "minority majority" rhetoric pushed by liberals like John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. Now that it has percolated into the general population, it seems to have outlived its objective validity, but not its emotional impact.
The deeper truth is that human nature can tolerate only so much "diversity." It is risky to rely entirely on imported foreigners to sustain a population, lest the native born become dangerously alienated from their own society. That's why the low birth rate in the West is problematic and needs to be addressed. Ironically, politicians on the Right (not least the Right to Life movement) seem loath to support a safety net that might help to do so.
But as I suggested, that doesn't explain the extreme pathology. After all, Tucker Carlson doesn't urge teenagers to shoot up schools, but they do it just the same.
The years you're talking about were the WW2 years. A good percentage of men were in the military (over 12 million were in uniform) and businesses were hard put to keep their factories running, especially as the war required a huge reinvestment in military. There were also wage (and price) controls by Washington during those years. (And a number of labor riots as well.) Workers were imported to work the fields, many of them Mexicans. Tax rates also went up to 90%, and CEOs didn't make obscene amounts of money. Businesses also reinvested in their businesses as opposed to shoring up their artificial stock prices. Not to mention the baby boom. If whites continued to have babies at the same rate as in the 50s, perhaps they wouldn't be crying about "replacements"!
The deadly behavior of one more paranoid lunatic seems to have more to do with the unprecedented widespread enabling of violent fantasies, social isolation and the breakdown of mental health treatment in this country than any policy agenda.
That said, fear of immigrants runs in generational cycles. The 1924 legislation - strongly supported by American labor - severely restricted the entry of non-Nordic persons. Not coincidentally, labor, freed from low wage competition, enjoyed its golden age in succeeding decades. After forty years, 1965 legislation loosened the barriers. So here we are again.
"Replacement" theory was simultaneously bolstered by the "minority majority" rhetoric pushed by liberals like John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. Now that it has percolated into the general population, it seems to have outlived its objective validity, but not its emotional impact.
The deeper truth is that human nature can tolerate only so much "diversity." It is risky to rely entirely on imported foreigners to sustain a population, lest the native born become dangerously alienated from their own society. That's why the low birth rate in the West is problematic and needs to be addressed. Ironically, politicians on the Right (not least the Right to Life movement) seem loath to support a safety net that might help to do so.
But as I suggested, that doesn't explain the extreme pathology. After all, Tucker Carlson doesn't urge teenagers to shoot up schools, but they do it just the same.
The years you're talking about were the WW2 years. A good percentage of men were in the military (over 12 million were in uniform) and businesses were hard put to keep their factories running, especially as the war required a huge reinvestment in military. There were also wage (and price) controls by Washington during those years. (And a number of labor riots as well.) Workers were imported to work the fields, many of them Mexicans. Tax rates also went up to 90%, and CEOs didn't make obscene amounts of money. Businesses also reinvested in their businesses as opposed to shoring up their artificial stock prices. Not to mention the baby boom. If whites continued to have babies at the same rate as in the 50s, perhaps they wouldn't be crying about "replacements"!