Tag: immigration

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.

The changing immigration narrative

And all of them are lies. Those who are conservatives or moderates, and still resist the inevitable rise of identity politics, would do well to consider who were the original architects of the arguments upon which your optimistic cases rest.

Your country has been invaded by 60 million aliens. Defend your land and repatriate them or be dispossessed. Like them or not, those are your options. Remember, if current trends prevail, one day “Americans” will deny that your grandchildren are white in the same way people now deny that I am an American Indian.

After all, they won’t look white.

Whites are the new Indians

Lawrence Murray chronicles the invasion and conquest of white America:

It is clear that the coastal and border regions of the United States, home to our largest cities and power centers, seem destined to become solidly non-white, leaving a large but relatively sparse—and therefore colonially vulnerable—interior region as the only place with a large White majority. The United States is reverting to a colonial society, one of foreign cities and a disconnected indigenous countryside. We’ve become the Indians.

This is a problem. Cities are the focal points of social and financial mobility in the United States, centers of political power, and where high status is conferred upon people, something normies crave. That we are becoming physically and culturally excluded from this world I think is a net negative, despite much of the alt-right’s hostility to urban life. Indeed, how much of that hostility is an indictment of the demographics of cities and their derived politics rather than of the physical spaces of the cities themselves? Our situation is a perverse one, one in which our cities are foreign to us even though urbanization is an integral part of modernity.

The idea that we can abandon our own cities for farther and farther away suburbs, a phenomenon which has been going on for decades, is one whose time is going to be cut short sooner or later by the simple reality that ordinary people cannot afford to move away from jobs. Not to mention that we will run out of land eventually. At this point it is a game of chicken with (((international financial capitalism))) to see whose rotten undergirding falls out first—do the cities collapse under their own dead weight as a result of our flight and replacement with net tax-consuming vibrants, or do we become impoverished in the long-run as a result of unplugging ourselves from “where the money is”?

For the foreseeable future, we will continue to have a  racially-driven reverse movement of people out of cities into the hinterland. Traditionally, cities were grown from the countryside as people migrated to them in search of opportunity and employment. Our ongoing revolt against the flow of history does not stop urbanization, however. Instead of our own countryside fueling the growth of our cities, it is migration from the global south, which exacerbates White flight further. Is there really any good reason why unemployed or underemployed native English speakers from say, the Rust Belt, couldn’t be encouraged to move to our cities for work? Why instead import what are largely foreign functional illiterates?

The so-called global city is really just a third world colony in the White world. Colonization is not just a metaphor for the current state of affairs, it is the reality of them. How did European colonists live outside of Europe during our high tide? They lived in and built fortified cities and ports in foreign lands where they were a minority. Today it has been reversed; we are the ones living beyond the Pale, watching ivory towers filled with ebony rise in our conquered capitals.

The loss of our own cities is unique problem of the White world, the sort of thing Stoddard warned us would happen if we yielded the outer dikes without shoring up the inner dikes. A Japanese city is Japanese. A Mexican city is Mexican. An Indian city is Indian. A Chinese city is Chinese. It is only in Europe and the Anglo satellites where you have this phenomenon of cities being not just slightly divergent from the general population but foreign to it. New York, for example, is not an Anglo-American city, but an Israeli-Puerto Rican-Chinese-Pakistani-Ecuadorian-Mexican-Filipino-Dominican-African-Korean city. Paris is not a French city, but an Algerian-Moroccan-Portuguese-Senegalese-Vietnamese-Malian city. London is not a British city, but an Indian-Pakistani-Jamaican-Polish-Bengali-Arab-Chinese-Nigerian city. It will pose a geopolitical problem in the future, that metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties in the same country are different races from one another. Indeed, there can be no harmony in a country where the centers of power and economic life are radically different from the wider society—the ancient tension between urban and rural will only be exacerbated further.

Of course, the situation can, and most likely will, be reversed in time. The tragic thing is that it will not be reversed easily, or most likely, peacefully. This is why the great military historian Martin van Creveld, when asked if migration caused war or war caused migration, answered: “there is no difference, migration is war.”

And the United States of America has been losing that war since 1965.

Even unto the fifth generation

In which it is observed that immigrants, the children of immigrants, and even the great-great-grandchildren of immigrants cannot be trusted to vote in the interests of their new country. A reader comments at John Wright’s site:

As a Republican who has tentatively decided not to vote for Trump (tentatively because it is foolish to bind yourself with oaths before the vote; who knows where my conscience might lead me come November?), I read the article as per your advice. I sympathize with the author, but I do not agree for the most part. I suppose I am either a fool or a conservative intellectual, because I do not believe Trump is worth trying.

The author admits that Trump is to the left of Hillary on most every issue except immigration, and immigration is quite frankly the issue I care least about. I understand the concerns of my fellow conservatives, but I am not afraid of immigrants. We are a country of immigrants: my great-great grandfather was an immigrant who came from a people and culture that many (perhaps most) Americans at the time thought was too stupid ever become proper citizens. Later they were considered dangerous, and it was said that they had come from a culture that was too radical and subversive to ever assimilate. Yet assimilate they did, and I stand here because of it. I am hesitant to close the door that my ancestors came through, and I have faith enough in assimilation and the melting pot, even if the Left does not.

Even after five generations, this particular US citizen cares less about “his” country than he does about his native identity. Because, by his own admission, he still identifies more with those who are not Americans than those who are, and is still more concerned with the well-being of those who are not Americans than those who are.

I found the statement “I am not afraid of immigrants” to be particularly fatuous. Because, of course, one high-performance immigrant from Germany is the same as 600 million immigrants from Mexico, China, or Nigeria. There is neither quantity nor quality, neither newcomer nor native, because all men are created equal.

Remember this solipsistic virtue-signaling if you’re ever tempted to regret the decline and fall of the United States, or find yourself asking “why”?

Why Trump will win

Not because Hillary is a drug-fortified zombie being literally propped-up by her handlers, but because, given sufficient time, identity always trumps ideology in the end. A woman at Alpha Game recounts her relatives’ initial experience with the White Pill:

Talked to my brother and his wife recently. They live in a very expensive township with lots of Asian and some NAM diversity. They’re blue pill to the core, upper middle class NeverTrumpers who champion H1B visas because they are in pharma, and without Indian people the business would fail due to not enough qualified Americans.

Anyway. Their son just started kindergarten in the overloaded public schools. My (((SIL))) is upset because her son is a minority in his class. None of the NAMs or Asian kids want to play with him.

I said to her, “this is what you want, though, right? Diversity is our strength.”

She blinked for a second and said she wanted diversity, she just doesn’t want her son to be a minority.

Virtually none of the white diversity and equality advocates actually believe what they claim to believe, and quite possibly even think they believe. They can argue about how the Great Society ruined the black family or reference sob stories about the anti-Communist Boat People or declare that Hispanics are naturally conservative family-oriented people all they like, because at the end of the day, experiencing the hard reality that their children are now a despised minority will hit them in the solar plexus and cause them considerable intellectual and emotional distress.

Remember, most people cannot think in the abstract. They cannot make sense of concepts that are outside their range of direct experiences. To them, diversity means an imaginary limit of perhaps 40 percent people with different color skin who are nevertheless ordinary white people just like them on the inside. They have never spent a single day in Tokyo, where there are thousands of Asians in every direction without a single white face as far as the eye can see. They have never sat in a single meeting where everyone is rapidly speaking a language you don’t know well enough to follow.

They simply cannot imagine any situation where those like them are not in complete control of the situation. They think it is safe to indulge themselves in their virtue-signaling in favor of diversity and equality and progress, never realizing that those things not only have consequences, but will have severe consequences that will impact the lives of them and their children.

And once goodthinking white people start experiencing those consequences in sufficient numbers, they will become badthinkers, in fact, they will become far more vociferous badthinkers than we thought criminals who rejected goodthink all along.

Correcting the Churchians

One of Jerry Pournelle’s readers points out that there are considerably more lessons from the Bible that can be applied to the question of immigration than are generally applied by Churchians who carefully cherry-pick a single element from a verse they otherwise ignore:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“St. Paul may have been an optimist.” – Jerry Pournelle

Or Galatians 3:28 is being grotesquely and disingenuously wrenched out of context to attempt to justify secular social and political goals and ideas it never had the slightest connection with.  Coincidentally enough this verse and a few others before and after were the Epistle reading a few Sundays ago at our church.  Since you appear to be using the Berean Literal Bible I’ll continue with it:

Galatians 3:26 teaches, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:27 continues, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

And Galatians 3:29 followed up with, “Now if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.”

Taken together this very clearly refers to a fellowship of all Christian believers.   It certainly can never be used under any circumstances to justify an unlimited influx of non-Christians into any Christian land.  And it can’t even be used at all unless a theocracy is set up.

Alternately we could go ahead and add numerical references to each word in the Bible, or even each letter.  This will make it still easier for people to indulge that favorite pass time of using the Bible to justify their personal positions.  As the late Sam Francis observed on the occasion of the Southern Baptist Convention’s apology for slavery, the Bible endorses human slavery and does not prohibit it.  Even John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul advised slaves to be content in their situations.

But this being Sunday, I’ll quote one another applicable Bible teaching, this one on the question of the extremely wealthy welcoming strangers while imposing all the costs of their hospitality involuntarily on their poor neighbors:

2 Samuel 12:1-6

The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. 


“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”


David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

This seems appropriate for the many persons who enjoy the large profits of low cost immigrant labor – frequently illegals – while involuntarily imposing all the social costs onto the broader community.  Mark Zuckerberg and his H1B programmers come to mind here.

As is ALWAYS the case every time the Churchian case is examined, it turns out to not only have destructive and diabolical consequences, but it is obviously theologically incorrect, and all too often, directly anti-Biblical. In fact, as far as immigration goes, this is merely scratching the surface of the total historical falsity of the Churchian pro-immigration case.

Churchianity is a series of lies stacked upon other lies. I will not go so far as to say it is the religion of the Antichrist, although it carries a distinctly deceitful odor that is in line with various prophecies of that abomination. But there is no doubt whatsoever that it is anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.

UPDATE: I forgot to answer a question posed by Jerry:

We’ll assume it is possible for the sake of discussion, but can we all agree that it will be very difficult and expensive to deport them all, and the benefits of deporting all 11 million are likely to be lower than the costs?

No. It may be difficult and expensive, but it will definitely be worth the cost. And then we can start on however many are necessary to restore the promised pre-1965 demographic levels.

Identity trumps ideology

Being anti-facist, anti-racist, and pro-diversity won’t save you if you’re white, as a French writer discovered last weekend.

Writer Ghislain Gilberti and his son were savagely attacked on Saturday by a group of men shouting “filthy white”, seemingly Islamists enraged by one of his novels, police in France have heard.

Mr Gilbert and his 12-year-old son were attacked in Belfort, France on Saturday following harassment and attempted break-ins. Though an active antifascist, the writer and his family have received death threats from Salafists displeased that the prologue title of the novelist’s bestseller is “jihad”.

Police are investigating after Mr Gilberti was taken to hospital with a broken arm by firemen, following a reported street attack by Salafist Muslims. Mr Gilberti said he received blows to his back before being called a “filthy white” by four men aged between 20 and 30 years, who held him down while attacking.

The author reported the men also kicked his 12-year-old son in the head and stomach, shouting “it’s the same price for you” and “we don’t forgive, we don’t forget” at his 11-year-old daughter who was also present.

The thriller novelist lost consciousness during the beating and, following the attack, will again request full police protection, Mr Gilberti’s publisher broadcast on Facebook.

It appears even their strategy of being eaten last by the crocodile is a failure. Remember, identity > culture > politics.

If the New French are willing to attack a 12-year-old boy, don’t think they won’t attack you.

Front National: stop immigration!

Chute du nombre d’expulsions de clandestins : un signal catastrophique


While France is facing an unprecedented influx of migrants, we learned this morning that the number of illegal evictions fell 20% during the first six months of 2016, 2,000 fewer expulsions. While deportation cannot be the only response to illegal immigration, since we must first put all the possible means in place to stop the flow of arrivals upstream, this decline is still catastrophic. It will necessarily be heard by the smugglers and the mafias which carry migrants to France as a terrible signal of laxity, a call to come to France, with incalculable consequences.


The National Front demands the expulsion of all illegal immigrants unlawfully present in France, and the dismantling of mafia networks of illegal immigration. It will not skimp on the means to achieve this objective, which is the only acceptable one in a republic worthy of the name. This policy is effective if it is accompanied by a full and final restoration of our national borders and a clearly stated policy choice: stop immigration.


One can almost hear the tumbrils beginning to roll again in France.

Donald Trump’s immigration plan

The 10-point Trump plan for immigration reform:

Number One: We will build a wall along the southern border

On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border. We will use the best technology, including above-and below-ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels, and keep out the criminal cartels, and Mexico will pay for the wall.

Number Two: End ‘catch-and-release’

Anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens

According to federal data, there are at least 2 million criminal aliens now inside the country. We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement.

Beyond the 2 million, there are a vast number of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled or evaded justice. But their days on the run will soon be over. They go out, and they go out fast. …

We are going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers. Within ICE, I am going to create a new special Deportation Task Force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice. …. We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, and put more of them on the border, instead of behind desks. We will expand the number of Border Patrol Stations.

Number Four: Block funding for Sanctuary Cities

We will end the Sanctuary Cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.

Number Five: Cancel unconstitutional executive orders and enforce all immigration laws

We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants. … In a Trump administration, all immigration laws will be enforced.

Number Six: We are going to suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur

According to data provided to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign-born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. The number is likely higher, but the Administration refuses to provide this information to Congress.

As soon as I enter office, I am going to ask the Department of State, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of these cases in order to develop a list of regions and countries from which immigration must be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

Countries from which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya.

For the price of resettling 1 refugee in the United States, 12 could be resettled in a safe zone in their home region.

Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.

Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported

There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they have been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals. Due to a Supreme Court decision, if these violent offenders cannot be sent home, our law enforcement officers have to release them into U.S. communities. …. Those released include individuals convicted of killings, sexual assault and some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, who went on to reoffend at a very high rate.

Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system

For years, Congress has required a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system, but it has never been completed.

In my administration, we will ensure that this system is in place at all land, air, and sea ports. …Last year alone, nearly a half a million individuals overstayed their temporary visas. Removing visa overstays will be a top priority of my Administration. If people around the world believe they can just come on a temporary visa and never leave – the Obama-Clinton policy – then we have a completely open border. We must send the message that visa expiration dates will be strongly enforced.


Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet

We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country. …Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for removal.

Number 10: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers

…The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:

– To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms

– To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs – remember, it’s America First.

– To choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency

– And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.

It falls well short of a complete Muslim ban, aggressive mass repatriations, and a stated goal of the restoration of the pre-1965 demographic balance, that is necessary in the long term, it is a damned good start and certainly much better than any US immigration policy since 1965. Furthermore, it makes it very clear that Donald Trump fully intends to put Americans first and build that big, beautiful wall.