Tag: immigration

True diversity is national

As is the case with so many things, the Diversity being pushed on the nations of the West is a lie, a false and evil version of the true diversity that can only be preserved through the various peoples of the world remainingly firmly and determinedly distinct:

By marrying and moving into another culture, the women of It’ll Never Last tried their best to join another nation, and their failure to do so illustrates, rather gloriously, that mankind is still diverse. Our differences don’t just reflect our ideals but define our autonomy.

Far from promising peace, those who sing of no countries are really threatening us all with unspeakable violence, psychic and physical.

An empire, by nature, must trample on nationhood, even its own, for it presents the empire’s ambitions as the nation’s necessities, for how else can you get Americans, for example, to go die and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Though citing love of nation constantly, our Washington rulers are essentially anti-American, and that’s why a genuine nationalist like Edward Snowden must flee to Russia.

Nationalism is simply the love of one’s language, culture, history and heritage, one’s very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.

You really have to watch at least a few moments of the film mentioned, and linked, in the article quoted above. There really is something observably wrong with women who go that far outside their own culture; you can observe the crazy eyes even before they open their mouths and confirm the observation.

With a few evil exceptions, there is nothing good or beautiful about the destruction of a people and their erasure from history through assimilation. The Israelis understand this, for as Martin van Creveld’s wife Dvora once told me, the two greatest dangers to the Jews are a) that they will be hated, and b) that they will be too well loved.

The blessings of immigration

Acid-throwing attacks are popular in Pakistan:

A GROWING and worrying trend of acid-throwing attacks in Pakistan has seen a surge of women left with disfigured faces and left blinded for life. When a young, bright and highly intelligent woman from the district of Rawalpindi, in Pakistan was raped, there was a hushed and uneasy quiet that fell amongst the village whenever she passed through. She decided to ignore it, and shunned it aside as this is the attitude many people in India and Pakistan towards rape. They do not blame the attacker, but the victim herself.

No less than a few weeks after, the young woman who was slowly trying to adapt and recover from her initial horrific rape attack, found herself doubled up in pain in an alleyway screaming for help as her face and eyes burned, one late afternoon coming home. The reason? As the young woman had brought shame to her family, for being raped she was now no longer pure and thought of as dirty…. The young woman, who has fled Pakistan to come to Scotland, admits she finds it difficult to get out there and socialize with people.

Now see if you can guess what’s happening in the country where Pakistanis have been immigrating?

A horrific wave of acid attacks have overtaken London, leaving victims gruesomely disfigured and suffering life-altering injuries amid a growing trend that’s seen the corrosive liquid become the weapon of choice for British attackers…. The use of acid in attacks has even spread to children as young as 12 who have been arming themselves with substances “for self-defense.”

“British.” Sure they are. What are they contributing beyond acid attacks, child molesting, rape, and societal destruction? They have to go back. Every single last one. Only true Western nationals should be permitted residence in other Western countries. And even they should not be given full citizenship, let alone voting rights.

Christian civic nationalism

Would that the Christian churches had embraced this civic nationalist position rather than the cucked, anti-Biblical, globalist false Samaritanism that is their current creed. John C. Wright applies the Thomistic position to the immigration question:

No nation is required by God’s law to allow citizenship to any strangers not yet having the common good firmly at heart.

If divine law allows Mosiac law to forbid Ammonites and Moabite and other known enemies from being welcomed into fellowship, that is, citizenship, likewise the laws of a Christian nation can forbid Mohammedans from dwelling among them.

If divine law allowed Mosiac law to forbid friendly foreigners from being welcomed before the third generation, likewise the laws of a Christian nation can forbid the Christians who speak of different tongue, Mexicans and the like, from being granting the franchise to vote until their grandchildren have been born and raised here. Since this is roughly the amount of time it takes a group eager to acclimate and amalgamate into our customs and language to leave behind their Chinatowns and Little Italies and become true Americans, I see no evil in following the Thomist wisdom in that matter.

However, no matter how many generations pass, sad history has shown that children of Mohammedans born and raised in Western nations are too often still loyal to Sharia Law, to the brutal and vulgar practices of this alien and satanic religion, and too often are easily led to commit atrocities no votaries of civilized religions are wont to do.

The loyalty and the degree of Westernization by the first generation of Mohammedan immigrants has been proved by the harsh lesson of history to be immaterial.

Even if the grandfather is willing to be a citizen of a Western republic, or a subject of a Christian king, his grandchildren, upon reading the Alcoran and hearing the voice crying from the minaret, are subject to a strong temptation to forswear their civilian loyalties which, as history testifies, are simply not present in other faiths. It would be imprudent to assume that this temptation, which has operated often enough in times past to be noticeable, will sullenly and for no cause no longer influence future generations.

I would say that if three generations are required for citizenship, at least four generations are the bare minimum for political office, as that would have prevented Immanuel Celler, the man who is primarily responsible for the demographic destruction of the United States, from being elected to the House of Representatives and waging his successful 40-year jihad against White Christian America. All four of his grandparents were immigrants, thereby demonstrating the wisdom of permitting third-generation immigrants to set immigration policy.

Sadly, this sensible policy is no longer an option. The barn door cannot be barred after the horses escape. Which, of course, is why the civic nationalists, Christian or otherwise, are no longer relevant and the Alt-Right is inevitable. The fact is that the civic nationalists have never been willing to fight to defend or enforce their Proposition, but the Alt-Right is more than willing to fight to defend our various nations.

Is America still a nation?

Pat Buchanan asks the $18 trillion question:

In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of “one people.” The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, “We the people …”

And who were these “people”?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. …”

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

What do YOU think? Do we have more or less freedom now that Trump is in office? Sound off in the WND Poll!

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true, or a tenet of trendy ideology?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things … constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

“Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory … is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again.”

Does this sound at all like us today?

The USA is not a nation. It is a multinational empire. America is a nation occupied and oppressed, the Posterity of We the People, a nation invaded and robbed of its intellectual and geographical birthright, a nation betrayed by its leaders past and present.

The self-serving 20th century lie of the Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants to the USA is being applied to Europe today; the Africans invading the nations of Europe en masse are no more Italians, Germans, or Swedes than the 19th and 20th century European immigrants were ever Americans.

As Christians, we are taught to judge the truth of a concept by its consequences. And the consequences of the Melting Pot, the Nation of Immigrants, and the Proposition Nation are evil indeed.

They will NEVER be Americans

And when pressed to choose, they will even admit it.

Dear Mexican: I’ve read that 75% of Americans are against giving illegal immigrants citizenship. I’m for full amnesty and citizenship for the current 12 million that are here, but I have two absolute conditions. First, the border is locked up by both the U.S. and Mexico, and illegal entries are reduced by 90% even if that takes the military of both countries. Second, that citizenship would require pledging allegiance to America and denouncing their Mexican citizenship. My question is: Do you think that the Mexican portion of the 12 million would agree to this? And do you think the Mexican government would agree to helping to close the border if full amnesty was given to those that are now here?

Dear Gabacho: You heard about how Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and equip it with solar panels? Your idea is stupider. Primeramente, locking up the border accomplishes nada. There’s less Mexicans coming into los Estados Unidos right now not because of Trump’s pendejadas but because the United States is turning into Mexico—so why not just stay in Mexico? And putting both the American and Mexican military on la frontera is a waste of resources and firepower better used against the Saudis. Segundamente, any Mexican who would become legal has to pledge allegiance to the U.S.—it’s call the “naturalization oath of allegiance,” pendejo. And who cares if they have dual citizenship? Mexicans only get that so they can own land down there instead of having to give it up to the government—unless you’d rather Mexicans give that up and bring up their 91-year-old Tía Goya to live in el Norte? Gabachos like you need to get it into your mind that Mexicans (and other immigrants, for that matter) can simultaneously be American yet have another country on their mind, and not be disloyal to the Stars and Stripes. Why do conservatives get all pissy about that, yet cheer on losers who still love the Confederacy? Oh, yeah—because gabacho.

Now, why would an immigrant from Mexico who is here to work hard and seek a better life and truly loves America be unwilling to give up his Mexican citizenship? Oh, they only keep it so they can own land down in Mexico, right.

And why would Americans be any more upset about Tía Goya coming to live off US welfare than they are about her children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews doing so?

A man cannot serve two masters. Nor can a man belong to two nations.

The transformation of the GOP

It is shocking – absolutely shocking – to discover that a model minority named “Avik Roy” is opposed to the transformation of the Republican Party from a conservative party to a nationalist party:

 Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.

“I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”

Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.

“Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.

This is a standard assessment among liberals, but it is frankly shocking to hear from a prominent conservative thinker. Our conversation had the air of a confessional: of Roy admitting that he and his intellectual comrades had gone wrong, had failed, had sinned.

But this is not why the Republican Party will die, it is why the conservative movement has lost control of the Republican Party, and why the conservative movement will die. Since when was the primary objective of the Republican Party, the USA, or the Constitution “a true commitment to equality for all Americans”, particularly in a world where “Americans” can be born anywhere? And it is nonsense to claim a political party should be driven by a commitment to something that does not exist; Roy might as reasonably decry the failure of the Republican commitment to unicorns.

The irony, as usual, is that Roy is practicing the very identity politics he decries. He’s opposed to American nationalism because he isn’t an American, he’s just a paperwork facsimile. And he’s wrong, of course, because the Democrats are not going to dominate American politics, because the more the demographics shift against white Americans, the more strongly they are going to be forced to band together in their own self-interest and defense.

The reality is that Roy is going to become a Democrat, just like all the other so-called conservatives whose identity is non-white. Because people like him have been practicing identity politics all along, they’ve just been doing so under cover of equalitarian ideology.

The Polish example

This speech in Poland by the God-Emperor sounds promising.

President Trump will ask other European nations to “take inspiration” from Poland, which has rejected refugee resettlement, in a speech later this week.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters Thursday that President Trump will deliver a speech in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, which symbolizes Polish heroism. He is flying to Poland next Wednesday and stopping there before he attends the G20 summit in Hamburg.

McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.

Of course, the President’s message would be more meaningful if he would follow the Polish example and reject refugee resettlement and mass immigration in the USA too.

The Czech example isn’t bad either:

The Czech parliament is working to liberalize the country’s gun laws, allowing people to better defend themselves. The reason for this new policy is safety, as well as practicality; in light of recent attacks in neighboring countries, the Czech government recognizes that disarming people puts them in danger, and that broad European gun control policies are ineffective. The Interior Minister said it best when he asked parliament to “show [him] a single terrorist attack in Europe perpetrated using a legally-owned weapon”.

Mailvox: the importance of posterity

Tublecane explores the implications of the historically correct interpretation of “posterity” in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

I don’t want to put words in Vox’s mouth, but the upshot is the Proposition Nation doesn’t exist. There is an American nation, but it has no power, and probably can’t be restored. The U.S. government, which associates itself with the idea of a nation, doesn’t have any such foundation.

The sine qua non of Voxism on the contemporary National Question, if I may be so bold as to assert it, is that we’re headed for social and political disaster. The Frankenstein’s Monster “nation” of the U.S.A. will fail and be eaten up by the bad sort of identity politics. The destructive tribalism is promoted and officially sanctioned by multiculturalism, and permitted, whether with or against its knowledge or will, by civic nationalism, Proposition Nationalism, Nation of Immigrantism, etc.

The practical solution is to, above all else, abandon the dead end of civic nationalism, which is a false creed. The posterity issue doesn’t prove that fact, but it is rhetorically useful in helping to swat it down. Then, I think, the idea is to reform in smaller groups and start nation-building for reelz.

That is a reasonable summary, although I would say that the correct definition of posterity is useful in demolishing the false rhetoric of the civic nationalists used to justify their civic nationalism rather than say that it swats down civic nationalism per se. What will actually destroy civic nationalism is the societally destructive results of immigration, multiculturalism, and globalism proving the concept false.

I would also be remiss if I failed to point out that one error the civic nationalists insist on making over and over and over again is to conflate the genetic nation with the legal state, and to confuse posterity with the possession of state paperwork. One obvious sign that a civic nationalist is doing this is that they will refer to laws and court decisions in a categorically erroneous attempt to rebut historical and scientific facts.

Five years? Make it permanent

No welfare for immigrants

President Trump announced Wednesday night that he will soon ask Congress to pass legislation banning immigrants from accessing public assistance within five years of entering the U.S.

“The time has come for new immigration rules that say … those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump told a campaign-style rally in Grand Rapids, Iowa.

Trump’s proposal would build on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows federal authorities to deport immigrants who become public dependents within five years of their arrival. Many of that law’s provisions were rolled back during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, but Trump’s proposal would make more categories of federal benefits off-limits to immigrants.

All categories of federal benefits should be off-limits to immigrants.

Mailvox: awareness in Germany

A reader writes of his recent observations:

I live in the most left (and green) town I know and can conceive of in Germany. In this town there’s a district that’s known nationwide for how “green” it is. Everyone votes green or far left. That’s where I and my family have been living since the nineties.

My parents were practically communists just 5 years ago and when you talk to them about taxes or guns you might still get the impression that they are. For about 2 years they’ve been hitting a very different note when it comes to foreigners, though. Cologne might have had a big part in waking them up.

After that, my sister had a job application rejected because she isn’t like the rest of the staff, Turkish. They all got upset about that for half a week and I had to listen to my sister beginning her sentences with “I mean… You know I’m not a racist, but…” for that time.

Now a very close family friend (even more crazy, total hippie, believes in auras etc) has legal trouble with her Lebanese ex-boyfriend and they all talked about it at the dinner table when she was visiting for a night. All three of them are horrified the judge might rule against her because he’s a foreigner.

He kicked her out of her own house.

She went to the police, they asked him about it, he told them it’s his house, they left without asking for proof.

Among my friends, I’d wager 90% now spew out sentences that would have triggered themselves into fits of “RACIS RACIS RAAAAAACIS!” just 5 years ago and the other 10% are crazy SJW’s who no longer talk to me because of my Twitter account.

That’s a quotient, in a city of SJW’s to begin with, that I am very hopeful about.

The Alt-Right is inevitable because it is the only political philosophy based in reality. This is simply one more example of the process in action.