Tag: immigration

The war on Canada’s small towns

You may think you can run away from the urban centers, but the pro-immigration elite has plans to subsidize the settling of immigrants and refugees in small towns as well:

I was on my way to work one morning around the beginning of March, when I decided to stop at MacDonald’s for a morning coffee, one of the few luxuries I can afford, despite having trained for four different fields of work throughout my life in Ontario, Canada. At my current job, I am by far the highest educated worker, with vast training, including a graduate degree in the chief public service that the organization provides: human services. Yet, I am employed on contract at the lowliest clerical job, with the poorest status, and wages and without benefit, not even vacation time (only money in lieu of vacation). That in it-self should raise the eyebrows of the handful of critical thinkers that still exist in this nation.

Immigration is a working class issue, make no mistake about it. If you were waiting for the wealthy to intervene and to try and stop immigration, that isn’t going to happen — ever!

At this point, the immigration tap doesn’t need to only be turned off, we actually need restoration efforts to make up for the losses sustained by Canadians proper — restorative justice.

I waited for my coffee, which was being poured by a long-time Canadian such as myself. Likely he was forced to take any job in order to continue to live in this town, like citizens in so many other small Ontario towns, which have suffered for decades as the jobs left for nations where products could be manufactured at a lower cost to create a product of poor quality to sell back to people like us.

I reached for the newspaper rack, and ended up with a newspaper in my hand, which I have learned through the application of my critical thinking skills to distrust and despise. Yet, it was in my hand, so I read the headline, “The Future Of Ontario’s Small Towns Is Immigration.”

I was served my coffee and I gulped it down, not paying attention to it, but rather the headline and burning my mouth and throat in the process. The pain was no comparison to the raw feeling of acid burning in my gut as I continued to read the front page newspaper story, which the low wage workers serving me would likely never even get a chance to glance at throughout their stress-full day at work.

Imagine having watched your entire community being fed a steady diet of raw potatoes and turnips for thirty years, and in order to survive you’ve swallowed it, but not because you liked it, but because you had been led to believe it was the only way to survive. And then one day you discovered that you could have been eating steak and lobster, and it was all a grand farce, because the joke was on you and the rest of the folks in your towns and communities all across the nation.

Reading that Toronto Star article, on that freezing cold morning in March, I recognized that “we” the working class had all been made complete fools, not once but again and again and again, as lie after lie was unveiled for us by grinning political shysters.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, you’re not going to vote the invaders out. Immigration is not “good for the economy”. It is not “good for Americans”. It is not “good for Canadians”. It is, in fact, considerably worse for the native populations in the long term than Operation Barbarossa was for the Russians.

All of the 3.4 million invading Germans were expelled from Soviet territory within three years. How long will it take to expel the 80 million invaders of the USA? The frightening thing is that immigration on this scale isn’t just invasion, it is permanent occupation.

Thanksgiving and the Indian traitor

There is an important Thanksgiving lesson here for Americans, who have repeated, and repeatded again, Massasoit’s fatal mistake:

Massasoit was the sachem, or political and military leader, of the Wampanoag confederation, a loose combination of villages in southeastern Massachusetts. About five years before the Pilgrims arrived, Massasoit’s people had been decimated by diseases brought by earlier European traders. Entire villages had been depopulated—including a Patuxet village that the newly arrived Pilgrims settled into and named New Plymouth.

As Mann explains, Massasoit was in a bind. The epidemic that had hit the Wampanoag hadn’t touched their longtime enemies to the west, the Narragansett. Massasoit feared his weakened people would be overrun, so he decided to gamble and let the Pilgrims stay. European traders had been visiting New England for at least a century, but Indian leaders always forbid them from establishing permanent settlements. The relationship was strictly transactional. Far from seeing the Europeans as superior, writes Mann, the Indians had good reason to take advantage of these strange newcomers:

Shorter than the natives, oddly dressed, and often unbearably dirty, the pallid foreigners had peculiar blue eyes that peeped out of the masks of bristly, animal-like hair that encased their faces. They were irritatingly garrulous, prone to fits of chicanery, and often surprisingly incompetent at what seemed to Indians like basic tasks. But they also made useful and beautiful goods—copper kettles, glittering colored glass, and steel knives and hatchets—unlike anything else in New England. Moreover they would exchange these valuable items for cheap furs of a sort used by Indians as blankets. It was like happening upon a dingy kiosk that would swap fancy electronic goods for customers’ used socks—almost anyone would be willing to overlook the shopkeeper’s peculiarities.

Massasoit’s plan was to allow the Pilgrims to stay—as long as they allied with the Wampanoag against the Narragansett.

“We’ll bring in the foreigners as allies to defeat our domestic enemies.” This  was neither the first time nor the last time someone has made that mistake. See: the British Labour Party, the U.S. Democratic Party. And in the case of the Wampanoag, the strategy turned out as history reliably dictates. The natives never seem to grasp the possibility that one day they will be outnumbered by the newcomers.

As for Massasoit and the Wampanoag, their peace with the Pilgrims lasted more than 50 years, until 1675, when one of Massasoit’s sons launched an attack and triggered a conflict that would encompass all of New England. The Europeans won, in large part, according to Mann, because by then they outnumbered the natives.

50 years. Interesting. Why, it was just 52 years ago that the Naturalization Act of 1965 was enacted….

Mailvox: midwit history

It’s no secret that I am not a fan of midwits. These responses to my previous post on Fake Americans and their Fake History may help explain why. They are the walking, talking examples of Dunning-Kruger in action. When I talk about them being relative retards, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m describing. Be sure to note how JM actually thinks he is correcting me.

According to your theory Britain, Canada (until two decades ago or so), Australia and New Zealand should be the best examples of freedom loving people in a land where the rule of law exists, where the government is not massive and social and economic freedoms are respected, in other words, Switzerland or close to it since their populations are by far MUCH MORE ANGLO than whatever you find in the U.S., less “tainted” by Germans, Italians, French and so on. I think we can all safely agree and that ALL the countries mentioned and less free and their populations endure more oppressive governments (female idiocy to the max, PC quasi-dictatorship, socialist policies, end to the right to bear arms, etc etc.). The worst part is that peoples of those countries CLAIMED FOR, ELECTED, AND ENACTED their governments actions with glee, only a tiny minority resisted or tried to do so. 

That’s ridiculous. The “British brethren” of the British Empire were obviously a different subset of Anglo stock than the American settlers. Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a necessary requirement of reliable community support for individual liberty and limited government, but it is not a sufficient one. Many Canadians are descended from British settlers who were loyal to the crown and were driven out. Australia is descended from criminal deportees; if you ever wondered why Sydney is a center of gay depravity, look up the crimes for which many of those criminals were deported.

As for the British themselves, they went through several hundred years of exporting and killing off their best and boldest. It should be no surprise that those who remain today are little more than island-dwelling dodo birds, blithely welcoming the newcomers who have already replaced them in their capital.

Anyone who thinks Switzerland is a bastion of individual liberty has never spent more than five minutes there. A friend of mine who worked in Zurich for five years collected various fines I would not have believed possible, including one for excess noise after 10 PM and another for turning on his fog lights when the amount of rain did not necessitate doing so. To put it his way, “imagine a homeowner’s association run by uptight German women.”

Whether you like it or not, your theory is full of holes and cannot explain why the peoples whose entrance you decry were allowed to enter en masse by the “virtuous protestant men of British stock” that inhabited the US back then, while the countries that should be shining examples of freedom due to their Protestant ethic (hahaha) and Anglo-saxon “pure” heritage sink ever so low. You don’t seem to realize that Irish and Italians were brought as low cost labor not out of a “duty bring white men of good character”. You don’t seem to realize that if anything, the mixture of European peoples in the U.S. might have slowed down the destruction of the liberties that many Americans take for granted etc.

This guy’s binary reasoning is so inept that he would similarly argue that my theory of NFL defense is full of holes and cannot explain how the Vikings were able to score on the Rams; obviously if the Vikings reached the end zone, then the Rams must have intended for them to do so.  And the idea that the addition of various peoples with no tradition of liberty or limited government somehow managed to slow down the destruction of now-vanished American liberties that their most illustrious members openly worked to destroy is simply too stupid to be mendacious.

Every generation has a faction arguing that relaxing the rules can’t possibly do any harm. The Founders were no exception; the fact that they were naive about immigration and failed to adequately protect their posterity from themselves does not change the fact that their original vision for the United States in no way approximated anything even remotely close to what we see today. The irony is that in JM’s arguing for American civic nationalism and the irrelevance of national origin, he is actually making a strong case for utterly ruthless ethnic cleansing, as evidently permitting even one otherwise unobjectionable exception is sufficient cause to give future civic nationalists grounds to destroy the nation.

Sertorius is similarly confused, but less obnoxious:

The Framers absolutely intended a British ethnostate, yet welcomed all white men of good character. Which was it? And since “intention” implies instrumentality, where exactly are the plans–even if they’re just jottings on a cocktail napkin–that will bring forth such a polity?

Both. First, they had a very different definition of “white” than we do today. Second, they only intended to allow enough whites of good character to permit them to fully assimilate through interbreeding. (Notice that they didn’t establish a reliable mechanism for policing “good character” either, therefore they must have intended to import criminals and Satanists, right?) Third, they had set up a structure in which the several States were supposed to be entirely sovereign. They felt that this arrangement would suffice to address any fundamental differences; what would it matter to Massachusetts or Virginia if Pennsylvania was adulterated by Germans? Of course, the Civil War proved them wrong only four-score-and-change years later.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend a single British ethnostate, but rather, a number of distinct British ethnostates as well as a few mixed white ethnostates. If you recall, they were rather favorably influenced by the historical Greek city-states. This is exactly why citizens of the USA should be praying for a reasonably peaceful breakup and non-violent ethnic cleansing instead of desperately trying to preserve the unsalvageable.

The real problem the civic nationalists have with history is that it clearly spells out the horrors that are likely on the way for the West. They avert their eyes and offer silly, nonsensical arguments about the intentions of the Founders in order to dispel the fear that is quietly gnawing at their bellies. But it won’t work, and in any event, nothing they say, and nothing I write, is going to make any difference whatsoever. I have no doubt that back in 372 AD, there was a Roman living in the town of Marcianopolis who was looking on in disbelief as 200,000 desperate Visigoths were permitted to cross the Danube to protect them from the Huns. Because refugees.

What could he have done about that? What possible difference could his arguments and his opinion have made? I like to think that Roman was smart enough to leave Marcianopolis and go very far away before Fritigern rose up to pillage the Roman north and slaughter the Emperor Valens at Adrianople six years later.

Fake Americans, fake solutions

This article by an early Fake American conclusively proves the power of identity politics even as he attempts to “solve” the problem of them.

The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago—a book that demolished any pretense of communism’s moral authority—was published in the West. The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling. This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?

No, the beginning of identity politics in the United States can be traced to the mass immigration of Italians and Irish back in the 1800s. But as students of Roman and Byzantine history know, mass immigration and the identity politics that follow from it long precede the existence of the United States.

In 2004, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? Huntington examined the stunning immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and argued that it was undermining longstanding notions of American national identity. America, Huntington said, has both a creed and a culture. The creed is formulated in the founding documents of our nation and in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. The culture derives from the Anglo-Protestant settlers who first peopled North America. Huntington worried about a “hispanicization” of American culture. This book was controversial, to say the least. Nor was it without weaknesses. It is hard for this descendant of Irish and Italian immigrants to accept the notion that America’s culture is monolithically Anglo-Protestant.

Every single time. And why would it be hard for Mr. Continetti to accept a basic fact of American history? Because his name is Continetti. The amusing thing is that he would probably angrily deny my claim to be a true blue Italian despite the fact that by his own illogic, I am more genuinely Italian than he is. Those who deny identity politics while clinging to their own identities will inevitably descend into self-parody sooner or later.

Identity politics is a veneer over the class politics that truly defines our society, and education is the best prism through which to view class in America today. 

Ironic, that a self-styled conservative would turn to a Marxian analysis in order to deny the identity politics that give him feelbads. Conservatives really have become yesterday’s liberals. Identity politics is not a veneer. It is the inevitable consequence of rival identities. Note that in Singapore, the leadership began consciously managing identity politics and to characterize Singaporeans by citizenship rather than national identity because its population was only 75 percent Chinese, (13.7 Malay, 8.7 Indian, 2.6 various), a percentage they felt to be too low to support genuine nationalism.

To combat identity politics, we must emphasize an American nationalism based on both a commitment to the ideals of the American Founding and a shared love of our national history and culture—a history and culture of individual freedom and religious pluralism, resistant to centralized authority and ever expanding into new frontiers and new possibilities.

Who is this “we”, kemosabe? How is this fake nationalism going to survive when it is based on a commitment that no one has to actually make and a love that is never going to be measured or held accountable? Will those who refuse to commit or simply don’t possess the love be stripped of their paper nationality and expelled? If not, then this is just more high-minded Fake American blather meant to disguise the fact that while they are citizens of the same multinational imperial state, neither they nor their ancestors were ever truly Americans.

UPDATE: So much for propositional conservatism. He has to go back.

The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist. The sex scandals are bringing out my inner feminist. Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

Lower IQ, declining productivity

More of the unseen benefits of mass immigration altering US demographics:

Evidence from the American Time Use Survey 2003-12 suggests the existence of small but statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in time spent not working at the workplace. Minorities, especially men, spend a greater fraction of their workdays not working than do white non-Hispanics. These differences are robust to the inclusion of large numbers of demographic, industry, occupation, time and geographic controls. They do not vary by union status, public-private sector attachment, pay method or age; nor do they arise from the effects of equal-employment enforcement or geographic differences in racial/ethnic representation. The findings imply that measures of the adjusted wage disadvantages of minority employees are overstated by about 10 percent.

White men are more productive on average. This isn’t news to anyone who actually works in the labor force or is familiar with national productivity statistics. The good news is that at least it isn’t racist. White women are less productive too.

But it is one more piece of evidence showing that immigration is NOT good for the economy. It is, however, good for white contractors.

Subway-repair contracts had to be issued and work performed as emergency repairs to every leg of the DC Metro train system this summer. Populated 92{75555d9e07a24e4b9ce698107dbbd309d5544f8e8057bab8f219509a7e001883} Black, every maintenance job up to the most specialized engineering positions are held by Blacks, who cannot perform said work. Like women in the Navy, they hold the job, knock down the pay and benefits, but someone else has to do the work under contract.

Merkel fails

The rise of Alternativ fur Deutschland has prevented Angela Merkel’s CDU from being able to form a government:

On Monday morning, the German Chancellor emerged without agreement on forming a new coalition government from marathon talks, that promotes the chance of new elections. The leader of the AfD party gave his vision on the situation.

According to the head of Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alexander Gauland, the “time has come” for Angela Merkel to leave the post of the German chancellor, as she “failed” to form a new German coalition government.

This comes as earlier on Monday the German Free Democratic Party (FDP) announced its withdrawal from the coalition talks with the union of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU), led by Merkel, and the Greens (prospective ‘Jamaica coalition’). The latest set of talks broke up at 4 am local time on Friday, November 17, but the preliminary negotiations on forming a coalition started on October 18. However, disagreements over such issues as migration and climate change have prevented parties from reaching a deal.

The CDU/CSU bloc could agree to form a minority government with the Greens. If no government is formed, a new parliamentary election will have to be scheduled.

It is now incumbent upon the Germans to stop supporting the destructive pro-immigrant, pro-refugee, anti-German parties. You don’t get a Hitler by evicting foreigners, you get a Hitler by permitting too many of them to live in your country.

Good luck with that

Ben Garrison’s cartoon attempting to make the case for civic nationalism instead tends to demonstrate its utter hopelessness, and rather effectively makes the case against it.

The Alt-Right is correct and the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can no more instill an instinctive respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law, and Anglo-American culture into immigrants, no matter how long they are resident in the USA, than you can instill Rohinga values into Americans during a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh.

Think about it. Do the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, or the Scandinavians value small government today, even after more than 100 years of residence in the USA? No. Not even a little bit. They have learned to speak English, but they have never learned to value limited government. They are not, they have not been, and they will never be Americans in the original sense of the term, which is simply another way of saying “British colonist”.

Hence the references in the Declaration of Independence to “ties of consaguinity” and “British brethren” and “King George”. The American revolutionaries were not declaring independence from Gustav II of Sweden, Emperor Joseph II of the Hapsburg Empire, or  Alvise Giovanni Mocenigo, the Doge of Venice.

The Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and various and sundry other post-1965 immigrant groups aren’t going to become Americans either. Not now, and not in 10 generations. They will NEVER accept or respect the historical Anglo-American values upon which the country was founded.

The point is that there is no “fractured America”. It is the USA that is fractured into America and various flavors of Not-America dating back to the mid-1800s. It worked, for a while, because the American residents sufficiently outnumbered the Not-American residents while immigration was almost entirely shut down between 1920 and 1965. They don’t outnumber them anymore, which is why the USA will never be synonymous with America again.

The Mall of Surrender

This is the #MallOfAmerica. I would suggest getting your Christmas shopping done early. Oh, wait…
– James Woods

Read the responses for some truly impressive virtue-signaling. Remember all the “Europe is lost” comments? Well, I have never personally seen anything like that in Rome or Paris. When we visited Rome several years ago with some friends from Minnesota, one of them commented that she was surprised to see fewer Muslims there than in Minnesota.

Isn’t it wonderful that Americans fought them over there so they could occupy America? Invade the world, invite the world, as Steve Sailer described it, may be the single dumbest strategery ever articulated in the written history of Man.

UPDATE: Man, The Observer has it right. Scandinavians really are the human equivalent of the dodo bird.

What do they think will happen?

Karl Lagerfeld knows what is coming. So do tens of thousands of people across Germany, if not an order of magnitude more:

Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld has sparked outrage by evoking the Holocaust as he attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel for opening the country’s borders to migrants.

“One cannot — even if there are decades between them — kill millions of Jews so you can bring millions of their worst enemies in their place,” he told a French television show. “I know someone in Germany who took a young Syrian and after four days said, ‘The greatest thing Germany invented was the Holocaust,’” he added.

If humanity is very, very fortunate, Reconquista 2.0 will look more like the Holocaust than the Great Leap Forward. If we’re not merely not fortunate, but downright unlucky, it’s going to look more like the Killing Fields or the Black Death.

You can be as outraged as you like. History is rife with people being outraged at people who tell them the truth. Outrage isn’t going to change anything that is already written into the great historical waves.

America-first immigration

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas lays down the history to civic nationalists and globalists alike:

For too long, a bipartisan, cosmopolitan elite has dismissed the people’s legitimate concerns about these things and put its own interests above the national interest.

No one captured this sensibility better than President Obama, when he famously called himself “a citizen of the world.”  With that phrase, he revealed a deep misunderstanding of citizenship. After all, “citizen” and “city” share the same Greek root word: citizenship by definition means that you belong to a particular political community. Yet many of our elites share Mr. Obama’s sensibility. They believe that American citizenship—real, actual citizenship—is meaningless, ought not be foreclosed to anyone, and ought not be the basis for distinctions between citizens and foreigners. You might say they think American exceptionalism lies in not making exceptions when it comes to citizenship.

This globalist mindset is not only foreign to most Americans. It’s also foreign to the American political tradition.

Take the Declaration of Independence. Our cosmopolitan elites love to cite its stirring passages about the rights of mankind when they talk about immigration or refugees. They’re not wrong to do so. Unlike any other country, America is an idea—but it is not only an idea. America is a real, particular place with real borders and real, flesh-and-blood people. And the Declaration tells us it was so from the very beginning.

Prior to those stirring passages about “unalienable Rights” and “Nature’s God,” in the Declaration’s very first sentence in fact, the Founders say it has become “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands” that tie them to another—one people, not all people, not citizens of the world, but actual people who make up actual colonies. The Founders frequently use the words we and us throughout the Declaration to describe that people.

Furthermore, on several occasions, the Declaration speaks of “these Colonies” or “these States.” The Founders were concerned about their own circumstances; they owed a duty to their own people who had sent them as representatives to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They weren’t trying to free South America from Spanish or Portuguese dominion, much as they might have opposed that dominion.

Perhaps most notably, the Founders explain towards the end of the Declaration that they had appealed not only to King George for redress, but also to their fellow British citizens, yet those fellow citizens had been “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” Consanguinity!—blood ties! That’s pretty much the opposite of being a citizen of the world.

So while the Declaration is of course a universal document, it’s also a particular document about one nation and one people. Its signers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to each other, in English, right here in America—not in Esperanto to mankind in the abstract.

Civic nationalism is globalism lite. It has failed in America, it is failing in Europe, and it is no more viable than communism, libertarianism, or any other utopian social policy.

The senator’s proposed RAISE Act is still woefully insufficient in the present circumstances, but it is a significant improvement on the disastrous current system.