Nationalists continue to rise

  • THE French presidential race has been rocked after a opinion poll showed leader of the National Front party, Marine Le Pen, is by far the most popular political figure among right-wing supporters, and also gaining ground among left-wing circles. According to the poll carried out by Odoxa for French television station France 2, 74 per cent of those who consider themselves ‘conservative’ and who claim to support right-wing politics want the head of the country’s leading anti-immigrant party to play a more influential role in French politics, both now and in the future.
  • Hungary referendum: 98 per cent of voters say ‘no’ to EU migrant quotas. Hungary has voted emphatically against accepting EU migrant quotas, exit polls suggest, in a cry of defiance against Brussels that is likely to cement the country’s status as the leader of a “counter-revolution” against the bloc’s central powers.
Yes, the referendum was declared invalid because only 45 percent of the electorate voted, and the two major French parties will again conspire to try to keep the Front National out of power. But these are stopgap measures. They will fail, sooner rather than later.
The pendulum always swings back, no matter how much the powers-that-be want to keep it moving in the same direction. There is simply nothing the global elite has to offer the people of the West that is as important and valuable to them as reclaiming their nations and repatriating the invaders.

A missing mandate

When elected politicians ignore the people, the people will ensure their voices are heard and their will is ultimately obeyed.

Over the past several months, the German people have become increasingly frustrated with Merkel’s “open-border” policy that has allowed over 1mm migrants to flow into the country from the Middle East and North Africa.  The flood of migrants has brought with it a wave of violent crime including sexual assaults resulting in a rising nationalist tension as people have turned their backs on Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union party in recent elections.

The most recent example of backlash over the migrant crisis comes from the small German town of Oersdorf in Northern Germany.  The Mayor of Oersdorf, Joachim Kebschull (61), was recently beaten unconscious outside of the city’s Town Hall where the construction committee was meeting to discuss a new housing development for migrants.  The mayor was apparently struck with a club from behind as he stepped out the Town Hall building to get a laptop from his car.

According to DW, Kebschull had been receiving threats for months.  In fact, the committee meeting had already been postponed twice over bomb threats.

The controversy surrounded a local subsidized housing revitalization where the mayor wanted to offer apartments to asylum-seekers.  “If we could also offer a family of refugees a new home in our village, we would like to take this opportunity and make a small contribution to people who had to flee their homes,” the association said in a statement on its website.

It will be interesting to see if the mayor learns anything from the experience or if he’s going to follow Angela Merkel’s lead and keep doubling down. Germany will not tolerate this invasion much longer and it won’t surprise me in the slightest if these one-off attacks – this is not the first attack on a pro-migrant politician – are replaced by a more organized campaign over the next year.

Keep in mind that this sort of violent response to an authority figure is very much a “last resort” behavior on the part of Germans. They are far more inclined to violence in obedience to authority than in resistance to it. It is a telling indicator that the German political establishment has lost the proverbial “Mandate of Heaven” and is on the verge of entering a pre-revolutionary state.

Right now, there is still the hope that the AfD will come to power and set things straight. But if they are, like the Front National, kept out of power through collusion by the major parties, or if they fail to repatriate the invaders, Germany is going to see violent civil strife that goes well beyond the Red Brigades scare of the 1970s.


False fears, fake refugees

It is increasingly clear that the sob stories about the desperate refugees fleeing war have been nothing but pro-migrant propaganda from the start:

Migrants with recognised refugee status are holidaying in the countries they supposedly “fled”, with their vacations funded by German taxpayers, a newspaper has found. Newspaper Welt am Sonntag learnt that migrants are returning to countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon for holiday purposes, then travelling back to Germany where they continue to receive comfortable welfare payments.

The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has been aware for some time that some recognised refugees are taking leisure trips to the very spots they claim their lives are in danger.

The government body sent a written request to Berlin’s employment agencies in June, asking that they report the travel arrangements of migrants granted asylum holidaying in their countries of origin.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Employment Agency confirmed that “there are such cases” but reports that there is “no analysis or statistics on this subject and therefore we do not have information”.

It’s time to repatriate every single “refugee” and migrant that has claimed asylum in Europe or the United States. They are invaders and economic parasites, they are not “new Americans” or “new Germans” and they will never be.

And the churches and charity organizations who aided and abetted this treasonous, criminal activity should be investigated, fined, and if they knowingly helped the migrants defraud the public, have their licenses to operate removed.

As for those foolish enough to claim that the West has to help them, keep in mind that Nigeria is on track to have a population of 509 million by 2050 thanks to Western assistance. The West needs to stop helping the global South now or it is going to have to choose between a) mass slaughter and b) being completely overrun.

It will choose (a) of course. And all the blame for the bloodshed should be placed directly on the heads and hands of the Churchians and do-gooders and aid workers who made it possible. They fed the world. They let them know it was Christmastime. And they guaranteed that considerably more people will eventually starve or be slaughtered than would have died in the first place.

How on Earth do you think a bankrupt, invaded, infuriated West is going to be in any position to help a global South that is more than 10 times worse off than before anyway? Do any of you idiot do-gooders even think beyond later this afternoon?

I’m not talking about being cruel to be kind. I’m talking about letting events take their course in order to avoid our children and grandchildren wading knee-deep in blood in the future. And that’s the rosy scenario.


At best, an economic wash

As John Red Eagle and I demonstrated in Cuckservative, large numbers of immigrants are not good for the economy. Moreover, the biggest econonomic study on the matter to date has concluded that at best, the net economic benefits of immigrants are nonexistent.

Keep in mind that this economics study does not even begin to take into account the cultural destruction that is caused by immigration.
Immigration has been and will continue to be a hot button topic in the 2016 presidential campaign.  Trump has called for a wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico and a halt to all immigration from certain “countries of concern to national security.”  Meanwhile, Hillary has called for more relaxed immigration policies that would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and a surge in Syrian refugees.

But, no matter where you stand politically on immigration, a group of the nation’s “smartest” professors from the most elite schools in the country recently came together to publish a 500-page study for the “National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine” on the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration.  After what must have been countless months of research, the report seems to confirm what most people could have derived from applying simple logic, namely that while immigration expands the economy it also negatively impacts the employment of low-skilled native workers and places undue burden on federal and state entitlements like food assistance programs and Medicaid.

The full 500-page immigration study can be reviewed at the end of this post but here are the key takeaways…

First, the study finds that the lower median age of immigrants is a positive offset to the aging U.S. population and serves to enlarge the economy but notes that the key beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves and not the native citizens.

Second, low-skilled immigrants, which represented nearly 50% of the total in 2012, were found to have a higher employment rates than low-skilled natives indicating that U.S. citizens are being displaced at least at the lower bound of the income spectrum.

Finally, first-generation immigrants were found to be more costly for entitlement programs than native-born citizens.

There is NO CASE to make for the net economic benefits of mass immigration, nor can the economic benefits of immigration even begin to compensate for the various societal costs of immigration. The only economic case for immigration is a tautology, which is because the definition of GDP means that GDP will increase with population growth, so any increase in population for any reason, up to and including alien invasion and occupation, will be “economically beneficial” so long as “beneficial” is defined as being “a larger GDP number”.

This is not, in fact, the case. The natives are not better off economically, and they are definitely not better off in any other way.


The true Christian teaching on immigration

Contra the current churchian and papal perspectives, the traditional Christian teaching on immigration is that the common good of the nation must be considered first, not whatever happens to most benefit the potential immigrant. This analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’s work makes clear what was repeatedly demonstrated in Cuckservative, which is that what churchians are doing with regards to immigration is not Christian at all, but are the works of a false faith that is intrinsically anti-Christian.

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.

Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.

Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a timeframe for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.


Converged beyond belief

A few weeks ago, it became apparent that AirBnB was fully SJW-converged, as they announced plans to try to keep homeowners from being able to discriminate with regards to who was permitted to stay in their homes. But they’re even worse than one might imagine:


Airbnb ‏@Airbnb
We believe in a world where you can #BelongAnywhere. Today there are millions of displaced refugees in need of belonging somewhere.


Airbnb ‏@Airbnb 13 hours ago
We stand #WithRefugees — the millions who have had to leave everything behind, including their homes.

What a creepy pro-invasion image. HERE COME THE DEVIL ZOMBIE PEOPLE! And they’re going to STAY IN YOUR HOUSE! I’ve never used their service before, but taking this stance guarantees that I never will. If you Belong Anywhere, you belong nowhere, to no one.


Why the Left hates HP Lovecraft

They hate Lovecraft because he saw the future, and the evil that the immigrants would commit, and the harm they would do to America, much more clearly than any of the vaunted science fiction writers ever did.

The Street
H.P. Lovecraft

There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I will tell of The Street.

     Men of strength and honour fashioned that Street; good, valiant men of our blood who had come from the Blessed Isles across the sea. At first it was but a path trodden by bearers of water from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Then, as more men came to the growing cluster of houses and looked about for places to dwell, they built cabins along the north side; cabins of stout oaken logs with masonry on the side toward the forest, for many Indians lurked there with fire-arrows. And in a few years more, men built cabins on the south side of The Street.

     Up and down The Street walked grave men in conical hats, who most of the time carried muskets or fowling pieces. And there were also their bonneted wives and sober children. In the evening these men with their wives and children would sit about gigantic hearths and read and speak. Very simple were the things of which they read and spoke, yet things which gave them courage and goodness and helped them by day to subdue the forest and till the fields. And the children would listen, and learn of the laws and deeds of old, and of that dear England which they had never seen, or could not remember.

     There was war, and thereafter no more Indians troubled The Street. The men, busy with labour, waxed prosperous and as happy as they knew how to be. And the children grew up comfortably, and more families came from the Mother Land to dwell on The Street. And the children’s children, and the newcomers’ children, grew up. The town was now a city, and one by one the cabins gave place to houses; simple, beautiful houses of brick and wood, with stone steps and iron railings and fanlights over the doors. No flimsy creations were these houses, for they were made to serve many a generation. Within there were carven mantels and graceful stairs, and sensible, pleasing furniture, china, and silver, brought from the Mother Land.

     So The Street drank in the dreams of a young people, and rejoiced as its dwellers became more graceful and happy. Where once had been only strength and honour, taste and learning now abode as well. Books and paintings and music came to the houses, and the young men went to the university which rose above the plain to the north. In the place of conical hats and muskets there were three-cornered hats and small-swords, and lace and snowy periwigs. And there were cobblestones over which clattered many a blooded horse and rumbled many a gilded coach; and brick sidewalks with horse blocks and hitching-posts.

     There were in that Street many trees; elms and oaks and maples of dignity; so that in the summer the scene was all soft verdure and twittering bird-song. And behind the houses were walled rose-gardens with hedged paths and sundials, where at evening the moon and stars would shine bewitchingly while fragrant blossoms glistened with dew.

     So The Street dreamed on, past wars, calamities, and changes. Once most of the young men went away, and some never came back. That was when they furled the Old Flag and put up a new Banner of Stripes and Stars. But though men talked of great changes, The Street felt them not; for its folk were still the same, speaking of the old familiar things in the old familiar accents. And the trees still sheltered singing birds, and at evening the moon and stars looked down upon dewy blossoms in the walled rose-gardens.

     In time there were no more swords, three-cornered hats, or periwigs in The Street. How strange seemed the denizens with their walking-sticks, tall beavers, and cropped heads! New sounds came from the distance—first strange puffings and shrieks from the river a mile away, and then, many years later, strange puffings and shrieks and rumblings from other directions. The air was not quite so pure as before, but the spirit of the place had not changed. The blood and soul of the people were as the blood and soul of their ancestors who had fashioned The Street. Nor did the spirit change when they tore open the earth to lay down strange pipes, or when they set up tall posts bearing weird wires. There was so much ancient lore in that Street, that the past could not easily be forgotten.

     Then came days of evil, when many who had known The Street of old knew it no more; and many knew it, who had not known it before. And those who came were never as those who went away; for their accents were coarse and strident, and their mien and faces unpleasing. Their thoughts, too, fought with the wise, just spirit of The Street, so that The street pined silently as its houses fell into decay, and its trees died one by one, and its rose-gardens grew rank with weeds and waste. But it felt a stir of pride one day when again marched forth young men, some of whom never came back. These young men were clad in blue.

     With the years worse fortune came to The Street. Its trees were all gone now, and its rose-gardens were displaced by the backs of cheap, ugly new buildings on parallel streets. Yet the houses remained, despite the ravages of the years and the storms and worms, for they had been made to serve many a generation. New kinds of faces appeared in The Street; swarthy, sinister faces with furtive eyes and odd features, whose owners spoke unfamiliar words and placed signs in known and unknown characters upon most of the musty houses. Push-carts crowded the gutters. A sordid, undefinable stench settled over the place, and the ancient spirit slept.

     Great excitement once came to The Street. War and revolution were raging across the seas; a dynasty had collapsed, and its degenerate subjects were flocking with dubious intent to the Western Land. Many of these took lodgings in the battered houses that had once known the songs of birds and the scent of roses. Then the Western Land itself awoke, and joined the Mother Land in her titanic struggle for civilisation. Over the cities once more floated the Old Flag, companioned by the New Flag and by a plainer yet glorious Tri-colour. But not many flags floated over The Street, for therein brooded only fear and hatred and ignorance. Again young men went forth, but not quite as did the young men of those other days. Something was lacking. And the sons of those young men of other days, who did indeed go forth in olive-drab with the true spirit of their ancestors, went from distant places and knew not The Street and its ancient spirit.

     Over the seas there was a great victory, and in triumph most of the young men returned. Those who had lacked something lacked it no longer, yet did fear and hatred and ignorance still brood over The Street; for many had stayed behind, and many strangers had come from distant places to the ancient houses. And the young men who had returned dwelt there no longer. Swarthy and sinister were most of the strangers, yet among them one might find a few faces like those who fashioned The Street and moulded its spirit. Like and yet unlike, for there was in the eyes of all a weird, unhealthy glitter as of greed, ambition, vindictiveness, or misguided zeal. Unrest and treason were abroad amongst an evil few who plotted to strike the Western Land its death-blow, that they might mount to power over its ruins; even as assassins had mounted in that unhappy, frozen land from whence most of them had come. And the heart of that plotting was in The Street, whose crumbling houses teemed with alien makers of discord and echoed with the plans and speeches of those who yearned for the appointed day of blood, flame, and crime.

     Of the various odd assemblages in The Street, the law said much but could prove little. With great diligence did men of hidden badges linger and listen about such places as Petrovitch’s Bakery, the squalid Rifkin School of Modern Economics, the Circle Social Club, and the Liberty Café. There congregated sinister men in great numbers, yet always was their speech guarded or in a foreign tongue. And still the old houses stood, with their forgotten lore of nobler, departed centuries; of sturdy colonial tenants and dewy rose-gardens in the moonlight. Sometimes a lone poet or traveller would come to view them, and would try to picture them in their vanished glory; yet of such travellers and poets there were not many.

     The rumour now spread widely that these houses contained the leaders of a vast band of terrorists, who on a designated day were to launch an orgy of slaughter for the extermination of America and of all the fine old traditions which The Street had loved. Handbills and papers fluttered about filthy gutters; handbills and papers printed in many tongues and in many characters, yet all bearing messages of crime and rebellion. In these writings the people were urged to tear down the laws and virtues that our fathers had exalted; to stamp out the soul of the old America—the soul that was bequeathed through a thousand and a half years of Anglo-Saxon freedom, justice, and moderation. It was said that the swart men who dwelt in The Street and congregated in its rotting edifices were the brains of a hideous revolution; that at their word of command many millions of brainless, besotted beasts would stretch forth their noisome talons from the slums of a thousand cities, burning, slaying, and destroying till the land of our fathers should be no more. All this was said and repeated, and many looked forward in dread to the fourth day of July, about which the strange writings hinted much; yet could nothing be found to place the guilt. None could tell just whose arrest might cut off the damnable plotting at its source. Many times came bands of blue-coated police to search the shaky houses, though at last they ceased to come; for they too had grown tired of law and order, and had abandoned all the city to its fate. Then men in olive-drab came, bearing muskets; till it seemed as if in its sad sleep The Street must have some haunting dreams of those other days, when musket-bearing men in conical hats walked along it from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Yet could no act be performed to check the impending cataclysm; for the swart, sinister men were old in cunning.

     So The Street slept uneasily on, till one night there gathered in Petrovitch’s Bakery and the Rifkin School of Modern Economics, and the Circle Social Club, and Liberty Café, and in other places as well, vast hordes of men whose eyes were big with horrible triumph and expectation. Over hidden wires strange messages travelled, and much was said of still stranger messages yet to travel; but most of this was not guessed till afterward,when the Western Land was safe from the peril. The men in olive-drab could not tell what was happening, or what they ought to do; for the swart, sinister men were skilled in subtlety and concealment.

     And yet the men in olive-drab will always remember that night, and will speak of The Street as they tell of it to their grandchildren; for many of them were sent there toward morning on a mission unlike that which they had expected. It was known that this nest of anarchy was old, and that the houses were tottering from the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms; yet was the happening of that summer night a surprise because of its very queer uniformity. It was, indeed, an exceedingly singular happening; though after all a simple one. For without warning, in one of the small hours beyond midnight, all the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms came to a tremendous climax; and after the crash there was nothing left standing in The Street save two ancient chimneys and part of a stout brick wall. Nor did anything that had been alive come alive from the ruins.

     A poet and a traveller, who came with the mighty crowd that sought the scene, tell odd stories. The poet says that all through the hours before dawn he beheld sordid ruins but indistinctly in the glare of the arc-lights; that there loomed above the wreckage another picture wherein he could descry moonlight and fair houses and elms and oaks and maples of dignity. And the traveller declares that instead of the place’s wonted stench there lingered a delicate fragrance as of roses in full bloom. But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?

     There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I have told you of The Street.


A portrait in Churchianity

I tweeted this to the #jewsforrefugees hashtag and promptly received this response from a “pastor”.

Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
And you call yourself a Christian?


Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Yes. Who said this?  “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”


Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
Jesus said it. But what did he mean?


Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
He meant that the nations exist, and the interests of the children of the nation come before the interests of other nations.


Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
@voxday Wrong. He meant the gospel came to the Jews first. But he still healed the gentile woman’s daughter. God loves all people equally.

This is all too typical. Pastor Richard is clearly a Churchian and one of the wolves in sheep’s clothing of whom the Apostle Paul warned. The Churchians preach a god who does not hate the wicked and they preach the Gospel of Babel, in which there are no nations and everyone is the same and all are loved equally by their god.

And their god is not our God. Their god is the prince of this world.

Notice how this dishonest “pastor” is playing the usual deceptive bait-and-switch. He switches the context with regards to the meaning of the phrase spoken by Jesus, and claims that the meaning of the phrase is somehow defined to the contrary of its clear meaning by substituting for it the meaning of a different part of the story that is not even referenced in that phrase!


Moggies at the Mall

It’s only a matter of time before the Somalis stage a much bigger, much more lethal attack at the Megamall. But seriously, St. Cloud? Aside from the Vikings at training camp, there wasn’t a single black, Arab, or Asian to be seen in St. Cloud when I was young.

At least eight people were taken to a hospital with injuries after a stabbing attack at a Minnesota shopping mall that ended with the suspected attacker, who reportedly made references to Allah, shot dead by an off-duty police officer, authorities said.

The attack took place at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.

St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said during a news conference shortly after midnight that eight people were taken to St. Cloud Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries following the attack first reported about 8.15pm Saturday.

One person was admitted. No further details were released. During the news conference, Anderson said the attacker who was armed with a knife made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim.

And let’s not forget the bombing yesterday in New York City. At this point, it’s clear that Americans will be better off fighting an ethnic war sooner rather than later. Stabbings here, bombings there, shootings everywhere; that is the new US reality. There is not going to be any peace until the USA is 90 percent American again.

You cannot live in a civilized manner among barbarians, and tens of millions of barbarians are now inside the gates. Mass immigration is war.

Interesting times are upon us because the previous two generations were stupid. Better carry. You never know when you’ll need it.


Germans demand a solution

Albeit not a Final one, yet. The Governor of Bavaria and head of the CSU party has issued something of an ultimatum to Angela Merkel:

Ever since German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened up the country’s borders to refugees in early September of 2015, Horst Seehofer has been using every opportunity at his disposal to voice his disagreement. As head of the Christian Social Union (CSU) party, he is not someone who can easily be shrugged off. The CSU is the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The two parties, which collectively are known simply as the “union,” have a long tradition of campaigning together ahead of general elections and of divvying up cabinet posts should the center-right end up in government, which, for the last 12 years, it has. The CSU has no chapters in any other state while the CDU has no state chapter in Bavaria.

As the rift has widened, Seehofer has begun calling that long partnership into question, even raising the possibility that his party might campaign on its own ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections and put up a CSU chancellor candidate. To avoid that eventuality, he is demanding that Merkel take clear steps toward reversing her immigration policies and adopting a ceiling on the number of refugees Germany is willing to take in, a step Merkel has refused to take, citing potential inconsistencies with the German constitution. Last week, the CSU released a paper, called “Germany Must Remain Germany,” outlining steps it would like to see taken, including the abolishment of dual citizenship and a preference for migrants from the “Christian-Western culture.”

SPIEGEL: We have examined dozens of interviews that you have given in recent months. You talk a lot about refugee policy, but one thing is constantly left ambiguous, perhaps intentionally. What concrete steps does Angela Merkel have to take before you will say: “Okay, now we’ll back off?”

Seehofer: We want a solution to the immigration problem. To do that, we first need a ceiling. We don’t want unlimited immigration like we saw last year and that’s why we need binding measures as a guarantee. When announcements are made that we are combatting the root causes of flight, then they must be combined with concrete measures. When it is said that those who don’t have a right to asylum will be sent back, then we together with the federal government must enact a detailed, binding repatriation program. We want a clear system of rules that clearly and credibly reduces immigration to a reasonable level.

SPIEGEL: So you are sticking to your demand for a hard ceiling of 200,000 immigrants per year despite its potential inconsistencies with the guaranteed fundamental right to asylum?

Seehofer: Yes. We want a policy that safeguards this ceiling. We also, by the way, already changed the constitution to make this possible 23 years ago. With the support of all parties. Our constitution does not require us to take everybody who appears at our borders and demands asylum. And when someone comes from a safe country of origin, we can immediately repatriate them. The ceiling will work and it is consistent with the constitution.

SPIEGEL: The chancellor and several other CDU politicians have repeatedly insisted that they will not accept a ceiling. If the approval of such a ceiling is the prerequisite for an agreement, then there won’t be any agreement.

Seehofer: We’ll see. We will not back away from the 200,000 ceiling. It’s about our credibility, plain and simple.

SPIEGEL: Given that anything seems possible at this point, is a situation conceivable whereby the CDU enters the campaign with Merkel as its candidate for chancellor and the CSU says: We won’t support her?

Seehofer: We as a party will make personnel decisions in the first quarter of 2017. German history is full of serious mistakes pertaining to premature personnel decisions.

SPIEGEL: Last weekend, CSU leaders presented a paper containing the party’s refugee policy demands and it is full of odd sentences. Such as this one: “We are opposed to our cosmopolitan country being changed by immigration or refugee flows.” How cosmopolitan can a country be if it doesn’t want to be changed by immigration?

Seehofer: The paper’s title is: “Germany Must Remain Germany.” The chancellor has used almost the exact same formulation. When she says it, it’s considered liberal and future oriented. When we say it, it’s seen as reactionary and backwards.

SPIEGEL: Merkel never said that immigration cannot be allowed to change the country.

Seehofer: Look, Bavaria is a dynamic, cosmopolitan state. Those who don’t adapt fall behind. But we need ground rules. In every governmental speech I give before state parliament, I say: Bavaria will remain Bavaria. That’s not a contradiction.

SPIEGEL: Another question about your paper: In rejecting dual citizenship, the paper says that it is impossible to “serve two masters.” We always thought that it wasn’t citizens who served their state, but the other way around.

Seehofer: You aren’t asking why we are opposed to dual citizenship. Instead, you are quibbling over locution. The sentence is true and completely okay. I am allergic to this paternalism and censorship.

I thought it was particularly interesting that DER SPIEGEL was particularly interested in undermining the CSU demand for banning dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is one of the least defensible aspects of globalism, so it is something of a weak link that nationalists will do well to attack.

Notice that despite the headlines and the various outrages, the German establishment is considerably to the right of the the American establishment on immigration. Seehofer is openly saying things even Donald Trump wouldn’t dare, and he’s not only an elected politician, he’s one of the most powerful men in the country. And he’s a moderate compared to AfD.