There is a book of that name which points out that the drive for massive third world immigration is a direct result of the fact that American workers rejected revolution. In order for leftists to get what they want they must import third worlders.

I will add some points to this. First of all, as I keep pointing out, there is a REASON cheap labor EXISTS out there. Libertarians insist that borders are just an evil plot by racists. Libertarians point out that, by magic, when a third world laborer crosses a magic line called a border, his productivity, for no reason whatsoever, magically increases ten or twenty times.

The REASON cheap labor exists outside the United States is because the kind of people we are importing MAKE the country they are leaving poor. They are, among other things, political imbeciles. So in the third world you find two kinds of voters:

1) The passive kind who is totally enslaved mentally by a Church or other institutions who keep him FOR people who really exploit him and keep al the land for themselves, or

2) Followers of intellectuals who tell them that, in the New Communist Society, they will get their share of all that they think is out there. No one PRODUCES it. Its just THERE, and the only reason they aren't living the Good Life is because Mean People are keeping the Intellectuals from taking over.

Jews never get over this kind of thinking. They believe from the cradle that everything is a plot against them. When the Irish first came here, the ones who deserted the conservative Church took that side. The old Wobblies and other revolutionaries came from the Irish. But the Irish moved away both from their slavish dedication to the Church and their slavish dedication to the Intellectuals.

The Irish became CONSERVATIVE Democrats. EXACTLY the same thing happened to Italian immigrants. There was Saccho and Vanzetti back in the Good Old Days, but the Italians Americanized and cut the crap.

EXACTLY the same thing happened to the Polish immigrants.

So, just when the 1960s hippies were screaming for violent revolution by "The Workers," the worst enemies they had were the actual living and breathing workers. The working people I was with had a MUCH clearer conception of what Communism really was than the coat-and-tie Buckley conservatives did.

As George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO said when the United States granted the USSR Most Favored Nation status, "It's sure as hell not OUR most favored nation."

Communists caged in workers and shot them if they tried to escape. No respectable conservative ever mentioned that and no ethnic white hardhat ever forgot it.

In 1980 coat and tie conservatives finally accepted those dirty old working people, "Wallace Democrats," into a coalition and Reagan won everything. That was to a huge extent my doing. I had been repeating this since a letter to Goldwater in 1959.

Leftism's appeal is based on hate and envy. Europeans take envy for granted, Jews had to be told "Thou shalt not covet."

In Germany the word is Schadenfreude, "Joy of Pain." It describes the exhilaration an envious person feels when something awful happens to a person they envy. To a European and in the third world it is as important to HURT someone one hates for being prettier or richer as it is to get something for oneself.

Schadenfreude is hard to translate into the American language. A ruined celebrity is more likely to be pitied than celebrated about. But Schadenfreude is the ENTIRE basis of leftist appeal. From the leftist point of view, something awful happened to the Irish and the Pollacks after they got here. They became AMERICANS. The American attitude is that we want MORE. But we do not LIKE to get more at other people's expense, even rich people. The idea that one "MAKES money" is at the basis of our thought. We want money that WE make.

Johnson who wrote the first English dictionary said the proper term was to "GET money." That was a solid European concept. One could not produce or MAKE money. Money was distributed according to one's class.

The only difference between Marx and Johnson was that Johnson was conservative, he LIKED distribution by class. Marx believed what Johnson believed, that one GOT money, and he wanted himself and the other "intellectuals" to hand it out rather than class distinctions.

None of this makes any sense to an American outside of the liberals and some respectable conservatives. If somebody is rich, it is no skin off my nose. I am worried about ME. As the best advice goes:

"When you are making a deal, don't worry about what the other guy gets, worry about what YOU get."

Before WWII Europeans were lousy businessmen precisely because they could not understand this American point of view. They set up legal cartels which choked competition and progress to death. They said the cartels were needed because there was only so much and they needed to get their share of it. Workers were socialists because they wanted the intellectuals to give them a bigger share of the fixed pie.

In fact, the revolutionary attitude is exactly the same as the one Screwtape said that Hell was based on. He said that God could not love humans and wants to give them things because "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. If I want more, I must TAKE it."

But this nonsense does not sell over here except in New England and among Americans with European attitudes, the blue states.

American workers have very American common sense that has not been pounded out in college. So revolution will have to be imported.

BLACK workers, no matter how long they have been in America, will NEVER catch onto this common sense, and neither will the brown ones.