Porfolio Armor

The Meaning Of Martha’s Vineyard

Sorry for the light posting recently–I caught COVID last week, and just started pulling out of it over the weekend. While convalescing, I spent some time following the discussion about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis sending fifty illegal migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard.

The most common reaction on the immigration restrictionist right was positive: “Finally, liberals got a small taste of what border towns deal with every day”–that sort of thing. But a few observers had a less positive take on it. Below is one of the best articulations of their view.

Authored by “Martin” on his Substack.

Some thoughts on DeSantis, Martha’s Vineyard and the Right

“It’s our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.”

“Anyone who tells you the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington.”

–Donald Trump, 2016

DeSantis has made waves in the media sphere with his recent political stunt, having sent two planes filled with “migrants” to the bugaboo white LIBERAL mecca of “Martha’s Vineyard.” The response – from both the right and the left – in some sense mirrors the partisan divide: the Democrats roundly denouncing this “political stunt” and Bill Keating (D-MA) seething that “DeSantis is using migrants for his own political benefit.” The Republicans, starved for both attention and a concrete victory, have celebrated the Florida Governor for “fighting back,” “taking a stand” and “giving the liberals a taste of their own medicine.”

First, I want to be charitable, to clarify and also to dispense with surface level misunderstandings of what I’m going to say here. To the extent that DeSantis’ actions cause a “spectacle,” that they “raise awareness” of what is happening at the border daily, then it’s something of a good – a shambolic Trump-like tactic designed to sow a little discord and chaos into the political sphere. American Sun touched on this nicely below:

This perspective I am not at all concerned with – he understands the bigger political frame and that this is a small victory, the primary impact of which is more or less the “spanner in the works” style sabotage of the dominant leftist messaging and framework. There’s nothing wrong with celebrating a victory, with seeing the Democrats eating crow. The problem becomes when this leads into superficial and downright fraudulent readings of the response by the Democratic punditry and political establishment.

The prevailing attitude towards this event from the online right has been something of a gloat, a “we told you so,” a “gotcha” that will finally expose those wealthy, out of touch, Martha’s Vineyard LIBERALS as the REAL racists; the REAL enemies of the migrants, the REAL “Not in my back yarders.” Reading such comments today from prominently placed pundits and anons alike has served to solidify my view that the Right has no conception long term of what it means to be winners. Even worse, they don’t understand the left nearly as much as they think they do.

For some time now, particularly after what Steve Sailer has called “The Great Awokening,” Democratic voters have been rapidly swinging to the left on cultural issues. Obergefell, BLM and now Trans Rights have become litmus tests for acceptance in “polite” urban society. Along with these shibboleths, signaling your allegiance to the regime of mass third world immigration has become part and parcel of this “intersectionality:”

There’s no way to sugarcoat it: the Democrats have become the party of mass immigration extremism. But what do they think about diversity in general? What does it mean for the bigger picture? How do they view white people in relation to non-white ethnics?

White liberals overwhelmingly hold negative in-group bias towards other whites – the only ethnic group to do so; left wing blacks, hispanics and asians overwhelmingly favor their own group, despite the ostensibly “left wing” political orientation.

Perhaps what’s most shocking about this poll is how much even self avowed “conservative” whites have bought into the left wing framing of “diversity as our greatest strength.”

Now why do white liberals think this? Is it a cover for some deep-seated micro-aggressive racism? A desire for a eugenic white supremacist farmers market? An elaborate ploy to “own the red staters?” No! – The Ockham’s razor approach to leftist gloating and salivating over impending mass migration, diversity, “cultural enrichment” is to say: they genuinely believe this. There seems to be a fantasy shared by the so called “conservative” punditry and many GOP figures that white liberals in America “talk the talk” but they don’t “walk the walk.” They support “diversity for thee, but not for me.” The talking point seems to go like this: liberals want diversity but not proximity; they don’t want to deal with those pesky and unclean “immigrants,” if they’re “in their backyard,” and if we just rub their face into it enough, we’ll finally expose them for being the racist hypocrites they are:

I can’t drive home hard enough how embarrassingly pathetic this line of argument is. To dispel this conservative cope, lets see what the response was in “Martha’s Vineyard:”

(wow, nice masks)

Here’s an MA state representative telling us how horrified he is to have all these migrants show up in his small town:

White liberals genuinely love diversity. It makes them feel good. It gives them the tingles. It’s a cup of apple cider on Christmas morning whenever they hear a story of some border hopper who “made something of himself.” And as we saw earlier, they genuinely loathe other whites.

Too many commentators misread just precisely why the left was up in arms about this (at least the punditry – on the ground, the Churches and white liberals were more than willing to step up for photo ops with their masks). There are two key reasons they were upset:

1) Firstly, like the Holocaust, certain political cudgels can only be welded by one side (the democrats.) Thus, Nikki Fried, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture lamenting that these migrants were “political pawns” of DeSantis:

Of course, when 51 migrants died in a truck 8 months ago in Texas and this led to calls for “immigration reform,” they weren’t being used as political pawns. After all, they couldn’t stand for a nice photo-op at a church – because they were dead. If anything, such events cause the democrats to double down. The reason they died wasn’t because of our liberal immigration laws, amnesty and human trafficking callousness, but because some white state senator in Texas once tweeted about how much his constituents were being affected by mass immigration.

2). The second reason that the left was upset about DeSantis’ stunt is because it evoked spooky childhood memories from books like “Night” by Elie Wiesel. One has to understand that the left is highly neurotic and mental illness is fairly common, particularly in the 18-30 age group, but it’s heavily sex-dependent as well, thus:

Many on twitter didn’t see this, didn’t understand just *why* the liberals were freaking out on twitter about being enriched. To me, both angles were obvious – this one, exceedingly so. In the sentimental and neurotic left wing frame, planes = cattle-cars and mass transit = mass genocide. After all, Spielberg made a movie about it. We learned about it in grade 8. The holocaust. It starts with mass movement. The simple act of plane transiting migrants was enough to conjure up the specter of mass extermination, of genocide. To me, this is the most important “understanding” point about the hysterical reactions from the left – it is not at all about the migrants AS migrants, but rather about the “CALLOUSNESS” with which “DESANTIS” is willing to “TREAT HUMAN BEINGS AS CATTLE.” Don’t discount how impactful such understandings are to the mentally ill leftist.

I can imagine a rebuttal: “But liberals, when they see the consequences of their actions will come to their senses, they’ll understand that we can’t have an unregulated porous border, that our resources are finite, that third world immigrants have different attitudes to property, crime, sex. This is why DeSantis putting migrants into Martha’s Vineyard is a good thing.”

To this I would simply say: I would love to partake in that level of delusion – it would allow me to sleep much more soundly at night. In reality, we see the German government actively suiciding their entire economy just to “spite Putin.” We see Mollie Tibbet’s father came out publicly to denounce “racism” and signal his support for “open borders” following the horrific murder of his daughter at the hands of a migrant worker. These people would cut off their noses, their arms – their heads, just to spite us. I’m increasingly convinced that there’s nothing that would ever “open their eyes” about issues of criminality and race, immigration. There’s no level at which their “hypocrisy” will ever catch up with them – they’ll never feel embarrassed, ashamed, recant their position.

To celebrate this as victory – wholescale – is thus to find ourselves stuck in the left frame of accepting that infinity immigration is simply a “given fact” and we won’t ever be able to hit it at its source – our border. Shipping migrants around ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY is a loss. Thus we cope, granting the left their end game – our total replacement – for a short term victory. But the Dom Perignon of celebration doesn’t taste nearly as sweet – we’re still fighting a rearguard action.

If You Want To Stay In Touch

You can visit Martin’s Substack here.

You can follow Portfolio Armor on Twitter here, subscribe to our occasional email list here, download our hedging app here, or visit our website by clicking the image below.