Tag: immigration

“The Jewish face of immigration reform”

Yeah, so, about that….

Man featured in Time cover story on immigration reform is sentenced to 15 years in prison for child porn and sexually exploiting boy with brain cancer.

Naim, who immigrated to the US with his family when he was three years old, was named the ‘Jewish face of the immigration reform struggle’ after he appeared in the Time story. It was the first time Naim made his undocumented status publicly known.

‘My being public protects me because America loves stories,’ he told The Forward in 2013.

‘And when we hear about a good person — a person who is nice, who cares — we don’t want him deported; we want him in this country.’

No, we definitely want him deported. And all his family with him.

Importing disease

Tell us again how immigrants are beneficial to the native population, even when they are literally disease-infested:

One of every five refugees resettled in Minnesota by the federal government tested positive for latent tuberculosis in 2014, according to the state’s Department of Health.

Only 4 percent of the general population in the United States tested positive for latent tuberculosis in the most recent report provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

The April 2016 edition of the Refugee Health Quarterly, published by the Minnesota Department of Health reports that:

Minnesota had 150 cases of TB in 2015, compared to 147 cases in 2014 (a 2 percent increase). The most common risk factor for TB cases in Minnesota is being from a country where TB is common. TB screening is offered to all refugees during the domestic refugee health exam.

In 2014, 22 percent of refugees screened tested positive for LTBI (latent tuberculosis infection).

26 percent of all foreign born cases of tuberculosis in Minnesota were from people born in Somalia. Somalians almost exclusively enter the state through the refugee resettlement program.

Meanwhile, we’re simultaneously told by the same government that is importing disease-ridden aliens that if you don’t VACCINATE YOUR INFANT, you are practically committing murder.

Shades of infected blankets for the natives.

No room for refugees

Pitying poor refugees and granting them sanctuary in large numbers is always a mistake. Wikipedia on the Gothic War of 376-382.

In the summer of 376, a massive number of Goths arrived on the Danube River, the border of the Roman Empire, requesting asylum from the Huns. They came in two distinct groups: the Thervings led by Fritigern and Alavivus, and the Greuthungi led by Alatheus and Saphrax. Eunapius states their number as 200,000 including civilians, but Peter Heather estimates that the Thervings may have had only 10,000 warriors and 50,000 people in total, with the Greuthungi about the same size. The Cambridge Ancient History places modern estimates at around 90,000 people total.

The Goths sent ambassadors to the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens requesting permission to settle their people inside the Empire….

Many Goths inside Roman territory joined Fritigern, as did assorted slaves, miners, and prisoners. Roman garrisons in fortified towns held out, but those outside of them were easy prey. The Goths created a vast wagon train to hold all the loot and supplies pillaged from the Roman countryside, and they had much rage against the Roman population for what they had endured. Those who had started as starving refugees had transformed into a powerful army.

34 years later, Rome was sacked by Alaric. The same thing is going to happen to various cities in the USA and Europe if the “poor refugees” are not expelled from the West within the next 15-20 years.

But if your society collapses amidst ethnic violence, at least you can console yourselves with the knowledge that no one called you racist.

Immigration, feminism, and dyscivilization

Stefan Molyneux mentioned some telling statistics concerning the timing of the rapid increase in illegitimate births. This chart shows the percentage of illegitimate births, which have risen by an order of magnitude, from 4 percent in the 1940s and 1950s to 41 percent in 2010.

Notice the giant leap between 1960 and 1970. This cannot be entirely the result of feminism, but is likely a combination of a) the War on Poverty, b) the 1965 Immigration reform act, and c) feminism. The rise in illegitimacy is closely correlated with the changing racial demographics.

 
It is worth noting that the great brown hope of the equalitarians, mixed-race children, tend to be illegitimate and grow up without fathers. That isn’t exactly a sound set of building blocks on which to base a stable society. There hasn’t been a lot of research in this regard, but it is has been reported that 92 percent of biracial children with black fathers are illegitimate; 97 percent when the mothers are white. Even worse, only two percent of black fathers financially support biracial children or their white mothers, whether or not they marry them.
While it is merely anecdotal support for this study, you may recall how I noticed at Paris Disneyland that virtually no mixed-race children had a father with them. I saw many white children with white mothers and fathers, I saw several black children with black mothers and fathers, but with one exception, the mixed-race children were only accompanied by their mothers.

The situation is clearly not sustainable. Society will never be a functional brown equalitarian version of historical white American society. The concept is not even remotely credible given the observable evidence. This multiracial illegitimacy alone is sufficient to indicate why racial segregation is inevitable regardless of how anyone feels about it.

Homogeneous socities arise from heterogeneous societies because the latter are structurally inclined towards collapse. US society simply cannot survive in its current form; the stagnation and decline the USA has experienced to date is only beginning, as the effects of this 50-year destruction of the family are not even close to fully realized yet.

The best argument for Trump

From a comment at Althouse:

Once you’ve allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling
ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again
is an ally. We can worry about what the city should look like
once we’ve put out the fires and have stopped the barbarians from
actively setting more of them.

And, ideally, sent the barbarians back to their homelands. It’s not about “illegal aliens”. It’s not about documentation. It’s not about legality. It’s about the largest invasion in human history. It’s about the biggest mass migration in the recorded history of Man.

Mass repatriation or war. Those are the choices left to both America and the European nations now.

Choose wisely.

Nationalism rising fast

This is the first of the two election cycles I predicted beginning. So far, so anticipated:

Austria’s government was licking its wounds after the anti-immigration far-right triumphed in presidential elections, dealing a major blow to a political establishment seen by voters as out of touch and ineffectual.

According to preliminary results, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom party came a clear first with 36% of the vote in the first round of elections for the largely, but not entirely, ceremonial post of head of state.

Candidates from the two ruling centrist parties, which have effectively run Austria since the end of the second world war, failed to even make it into a runoff on 22 May, coming fourth and fifth each with 11% of the vote.

The result means that for the first time since 1945, Austria will not have a president backed by either Chancellor Werner Faymann’s Social Democrats or their centre-right coalition partners, the People’s party.

Having a president in the Habsburg dynasty’s former palace in Vienna not from either of the two main parties could shake up the traditionally staid and consensus-driven world of Austrian politics.

“This is the beginning of a new political era,” the Freedom party leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, said after what constituted the best result at federal level for the former party of the late Joerg Haider, calling it “historic”.

The Oesterreich tabloid described Hofer’s victory as a “tsunami that has turned our political landscape upside down”.

It’s very good news for everyone that the Freedom Party, AfD, the Swedish Democrats, and other nationalist parties are rising fast. At this rate, the nationalists will come to power in the second election cycle, in time to begin the necessary demographic modifications without excessive violence.

The Last Days of Cuckservatism

The New American reviews Cuckservative:

Cuckservative is co-written by Vox Day and John Red Eagle. Vox Day is the pseu­donym of a video game designer who has amassed quite a following in the online world with his often-controversial views. Day’s high IQ and technical approach to problem solving is felt throughout Cuckservative. Much effort is given to making the book’s main argument that immigration is the most important issue of our day and that “cuckservatives” are on the wrong side. “Thanks to their cuckservative ideology, America’s self-styled conservatives have literally betrayed the entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States, and in doing so, they have put the very survival of the nation at risk,” the authors charge.

Reading the book, one might easily feel reminded of two earlier books by Pat Buchanan: Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, and State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. The first book detailed the neoconservative infiltration of the conservative movement, and the latter detailed the demographic destruction caused by our immigration policy. Day, much like Buchanan before him, takes the GOP and the conservative establishment to task, but Day comes at it with an almost scientific approach. Cuckservative recounts how, almost from the beginning, the conservative movement was all too willing to purge elements that it feared might hurt its respectability in the eyes of its opponents. These “purges,” which have continued throughout all of the conservative movement’s history even to this day, “indicated a cowardly and submissive willingness to surrender when faced with public criticism.”

The vast majority of the book makes arguments against open immigration and goes into detail on the errors of the pro-immigration arguments espoused by the cuckservatives in the conservative movement. As the book explains, open immigration has been and will continue to be disastrous for anyone looking to secure political victories for the Right. The cuckservatives fail to realize this and routinely label any opponents of open borders and amnesty as “racist” or “xenophobes.” As a matter of fact, the book explains, “Today’s cuckservatives appear to be in a competition with the left to see who can open the borders wider, provide amnesty for more aliens, and add greater incentives for immigrants to retain their own culture in the place of American traditions and values.”

The cuckservative view on immigration is dismantled across multiple chapters. The “Melting Pot” is exposed as a myth. The idea that immigrants from nations with historically leftist governments will somehow miraculously become limited-government Republicans is ridiculed as the “Magic Dirt Theory.” Cuckservative explains that the “extremely high preference for expansive government among Hispanic immigrants is consistent with traditions of government in Latin America since the days of the Spanish Empire.”

These concerns are not just limited to the political realm for, as Cuckservative explains, “import people and you import their culture.” The discussions in the book are especially timely considering the refugee crisis currently unfolding in Europe.

Reading the comments of some of the commenters over there, I can’t help but think some of them don’t so much need to read Cuckservative as they desperately need to read SJWAL.

If you still think that a civil debate where the facts are thoughtfully articulated and the other side’s arguments are humbly but keenly dismantled, you’re not only wrong, you’re 2,400 years behind the times.

Open borders is anti-libertarian

It turns out that even Murray Rothbard turned against open borders before he died, as evidenced by this essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in the fateful year of 1994, the year NAFTA went live.

On the recent edition of Mises Weekends, Jeff Deist interviews Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann.  The topic is “Nation, State, and Borders.”  It is a worthwhile interview.  Fair warning: Hülsmann offers views similar to those of Hans Hoppe on these matters.  Quite importantly, he makes the distinction of nation vs. state.  It is a distinction worth internalizing for those who want to consider the application of libertarian theory in this world populated by humans.

From the interview, I learned of an essay written by Murray Rothbard in 1994, entitled Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State.  As is often the case, when I discover something of Rothbard’s I find myself torn between excitement and depression: excitement because I have somehow worked my way to a conclusion similar to his, and depression because all I have done is somehow worked my way to a conclusion similar to his.

It’s a very interesting essay, all the more so due to it being almost entirely unread in libertarian circles. To his credit, Rothbard, despite his dedication to praxeology, admits that his reason has been demonstrated to be wrong on the basis of events:

Open-Borders, or the Camp of the Saints Problem

The “nation”, of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country”. He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area….

The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples.

Previously it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As culture and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

It is even less easy to dismiss in light of the 61-million strong invasion of the USA and the recent European migrant crisis. But it was always an observably stupid dismissal in the first place, a logically fallacious appeal to subjective incredulity.

It’s very satisfying to not only be confident that I was correct to reject the open borders position – although I did so on purely logical grounds – but that one of the great libertarian thinkers eventually came around on the very important issue as well, although I am rather less certain that the same can be said of Mises. It increasingly appears that National Libertarianism, as I describe it, is the only viable libertarianism.

Civil war in Europe

A Danish professor’s warning:

Writing in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Professor Helmuth Nyborg, who is an expert in the connection between hormones and intelligence, discussed his previous research on how, “The effect of Europeans having few children and immigrants with low IQ” would lead to “Westerners (being) a minority in Europe, and that the average IQ drops so much that prosperity, democracy and civilization is threatened”.

Nyborg has previously asserted that low IQ migrants arriving from non-western countries leads to a decline in the average intelligence of western societies and therefore a drop in living standards and rising crime rates.

“In 2016, the current immigration policy gives us three alternatives – submission, repatriation or civil war. Unless Europe starts to lead a responsible family, immigration and integration policy, stated by the theory of evolution, I think civil war is most likely,” writes Nyborg.

Nyborg goes on to caution that simply referring to “right-wing extremism” will not make the chronic problems caused by overpopulation and failed multicultural policies disappear, warning that ethnic Europeans will be a minority in their own countries by 2050.

Ethnically homogeneous, civilized and democratic societies in Europe will be a thing of the past unless there is an “honorable repatriation” of migrants, warns Nyborg.

I concur. And I’ll go much further. I think civil war in the USA is even more likely. The war in Europe isn’t going to be much of a contest; Reconquista 2.0 will take 1/100th the time that its predecessor did. But the USA is considerably more divided, and considerably more muddled, than even the most heavily invaded European nation.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. As Martin van Creveld demonstrated in “Migration and War”, mass immigration is almost invariably connected to war in one way or another.