Tag: immigration

The end of the invasion

It looks like the end of the Mediterranean Invasion is now in sight:

A Greek coast guard vessel allegedly sank a rubber dinghy full of Syrian refugees, including women and children, according to film footage shot by Turkish fishermen.

The footage, which was reportedly recorded a few days ago and obtained by Turkish media, suggests that the Greeks sank the migrant boat with some sort of “lance”.

The inflatable boat had just left the Turkish coast, just a few miles from the Greek islands of Kos and Lesbos, where thousands of Syrians and other refugees have landed in recent weeks.

As the Greek patrol vessel moved away from the area, one of the fishermen can be heard saying: “The boat is deflating, the boat’s taking on water and there are people on board.”

He then added: “The boat was pierced by what looks like a long lance.”

The footage then showed migrants in the water as the boat gradually sank. The fishermen went to the rescue of the Syrians – said to be around 50 – and then called the Turkish coast guard, who eventually took the refugees back to the Turkish coast.

Armed or not, mass migrants are invaders and it’s about time that the European coast guards started actually guarding their coasts. The only thing that surprises me is that it wasn’t the Italian Navy that started sinking the “refugee” boats.

If the Greek and Italian navies had simply sunk the first ten or twenty boats to try to cross the sea, the entire crisis could have been averted. Now, with African “refugees” beating up and raping the aid workers working in the “refugee” camps, it looks like it’s going to be an long and ugly process of violent repatriation.

The Italian article points out that the cost of housing and providing for the three “delinquent” immigrants is 20,000 euros a year, which happens to be the annual income for one-third of Italian families. Which means the invasion is going to be brought to an end soon, one way or another.

And they said it would never catch on

Isn’t it fascinating how “cuckservative” bothers both the spineless GOP supporters of the post-1965 invasion as well as The New York Times? I wonder why that might be? But regardless, we have it straight from the Gray Lady: “the term has caught on”.

Cuckservative is an amalgamation of the word cuckold — the husband of an adulterous woman — and conservative. The implication is that mainstream Republicans, like jilted husbands, are facing humiliation and have lost sight of their futures.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, called the term the “ultimate insult” that the white nationalist movement can deliver to politicians who they feel have veered too far to the left. “The term, at its core, may be racist,” the group said.

Many who use the #cuckservative hashtag on Twitter espouse the view that the United States is shifting from a white-dominated country to one that caters too much to minority groups.

The radical nature of those ideas along with the pornographic connotations associated with “cuckold” have made the word a subject of hand-wringing among some conservative commentators.

“There is a community of conservatives who think Republicans should be racists,” said Jim Harper, a scholar at the Cato Institute. “I think there is probably a relatively sizable number of people out there who see the term ‘cuckservative’ as a valid criticism of conservatives.”

Erick Erickson, the conservative media personality, condemned those who throw around the word as a handful of racist Internet trolls who hate Christians and support an agenda of white supremacism.

 So, who are you going to trust? Those “conservatives” whose opinions are in line with the NYT and the SPLC and don’t wish to conserve the literal nation per se, or those who actually wish to conserve the nation proper, as in the “us and our posterity” for whom the Constitution was written?

After all, there is another, more accurate term for those the cuckservatives like to describe as “New Americans”. And that is “Not Americans”. Unlike a sports team, a nation is not laundry.

Europe prepares for mass deportations

I’ve known the Europeans were not going to tolerate American levels of immigration for a long time. Can you even imagine an American politican, let alone a Cabinet member, saying anything like this?

Millions of African migrants pose a threat to the standard of living and
social structure of the UK and the rest of Europe, the Foreign
Secretary has warned…. Speaking during a visit to Singapore, Mr Hammond said the gap in living standards between Europe and Africa meant there would always be an “economic motivation” for Africans to try to make it to the EU.

He told BBC News: “We have got to be able to resolve this problem ultimately by being able to return those who are not entitled to claim asylum back to their countries of origin. That’s our number one priority.

“As long as the Europe Union’s laws are the way they are, many of them will only have to set foot in Europe to be pretty confident that they will never be returned to their country of origin.

“Now, that is not a sustainable situation because Europe can’t protect itself and preserve its standard of living and social structure, if it has to absorb millions of migrants from Africa.”

He’s absolutely right. As we’ve seen, even the USA has been unable to preserve its standard of living and social structure due to its failure to absorb millions of migrants from Central and South America.

The SJWs and cuckservatives celebrate diversity, but what they are also celebrating is poverty. America’s living standards have fallen considerably since 1973, but no one realizes it yet because the combination of technological advancement and debt-spending conceals that fact. But it gradually becomes obvious, as Americans become increasingly unable to afford houses or even college educations.

But at least they have iPhones, so they can look at the pretty pictures. Dirt doesn’t trump genetics and culture is not a consequence of geographic location. The Europeans understand, as most Americans still do not, that millions of migrants will destroy, not enhance, their standard of living and social structure.

An overabundance of diversity

The Home Minister of Great Britain and the Interior Minister of France appear to be rethinking the glorious benefits of immigration of which we have been assured for the last 60 years.

Migrants think our streets are paved with gold

Those fleeing Africa for financial gain in Europe have unrealistic ideas about what we can offer

What we are currently facing is a global migration crisis. This situation cannot be seen as an issue just for our two countries. It is a priority at both a European and international level. Many of those in Calais and attempting to cross the Channel have made their way there through Italy, Greece or other countries. That is why we are pushing other member states – and the whole of the EU – to address this problem at root.

The nations of Europe will always provide protection for those genuinely fleeing conflict or persecution. However, we must break the link between crossing the Mediterranean and achieving settlement in Europe for economic reasons. Together, we are currently returning 200 migrants every month who have no right to asylum.

We are also working to ensure that people in the horn of Africa understand the stark realities of a dangerous journey that will result in their being returned to their own countries.

We must be relentless in our pursuit of those callous criminals who are encouraging vulnerable people to make this journey in the first place. That is why we are also working closely together to tackle the criminal gangs that are making a profit out of people’s misery. Both the UK and France are playing a leading role in this through operations in the Mediterranean and better intelligence- sharing and increased collaboration between law-enforcement agencies across Europe. Seventeen gangs have been smashed since the beginning of this year, thanks to our joint work.

Ultimately, the long-term answer to this problem lies in reducing the number of migrants who are crossing into Europe from Africa. Many see Europe, and particularly Britain, as somewhere that offers the prospect of financial gain. This is not the case – our streets are not paved with gold.

We must help African countries to develop economic and social opportunities so that people want to stay. We must work with those countries to fight illegal migration and allow people to be returned to their home countries more easily. This means a better targeting of development aid and increased investment.

Well, they do say the first step is to admit that you have a problem. But the answer isn’t fighting “illegal migration” it is stopping mass migration and repatriating the previous migrants.

Blame the Royal Navy

You rescue them, you keep them:

A Sudanese migrant rescued by the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean Sea and dropped off in Italy just five weeks ago has already made it to Britain. Hamad Said, 22, was given free passage on trains across Italy, France and all the way to Calais, where he jumped on a lorry to England. His journey of more than 2,000 miles from Sicily to Birmingham cost him just €76 — around £53 — as the French and Italian authorities simply waved him through.

Mr Said said they helped him by providing free train rides. And he claimed that even when he was eventually stopped by police in Marseille, they told him he had to leave the country. He replied that he was off to England, to which the officers simply said: ‘OK.’ They then gave him a piece of paper that allowed him to travel free on trains across the country.

You have to love the Italians. I expect the British concern for the Africans crossing the Mediterranean is going to disappear pretty quickly now that the Italians, with French complicity, have decided to ship them to Britain.

I don’t know how long it will take before their policy changes, but I expect those Royal Navy warships are going to start sinking the refugee boats sooner or later. If they had done that the first place they would have saved many, many lives in the long run.

Communicating with Cucky

Jared Taylor types as slowly as he can and lays out the logical case against them to the cuckservatives:

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach….

You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you
think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.

That’s the dialectical approach. In my observation, cuckservatives do not speak that language and they are not sufficiently versed in current genetic science to intelligently discuss the subject, which means that we can only expect to communicate with them through the rhetoric to which they are limited. So, allow me to summarize and translate: If you are a white man who thinks other white men calling you names is racist, you’re a cuckservative and a traitor to your nation.

It would be interesting to hear a cuckservative explain “the crisis in Calais“. The rational individual looks at the picture and worries about a violent, dystopian future on the horizon. The cuckservative looks at it and wonders why that awful Nazi racist is delaying the myriad blessings those vibrant young immigrants are going to convey upon their new native land.

 
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) warned that the lives of lorry drivers were now in danger because French police were simply no longer able to cope. The RHA’s chief executive, Richard Burnett, said: “It has become clear that the French authorities in Calais simply cannot cope. This has become an untenable situation and is obviously now beyond the capabilities of the French police. The RHA strongly repeats its request, made in June, for deployment of the French military to contain, segregate and control the migrant threat.

The illusion of knowledge

Now, I like Clark of PopeHat, but a challenge is a challenge. And one of the lures I find most irresistible is the cocksure breeziness of the man who thinks he knows what I know perfectly well he does not know. The fact is that no one who thinks “David Riccardo” is a reasonable response to a comment about immigration knows anything about economics. Or, for that matter, free trade.

James Thompson @JamesPsychol
Immigrants only benefit locals if they are better than the local average in ability and character, & make greater contributions

ClarkHat ‏@ClarkHat
The jury finds you guilty of economic ignorance and sentences you to read David Riccardo. 

Casher O’Neill @CasherONeill
@ClarkHat Do not invoke the sacred writings of Ricardo, that will get @voxday on your @@@ if he notices. 😀

ClarkHat ‏@ClarkHat
Vox can attack me on economics if he wants; I’ll fight back.

First, however, I will correct Mr. Thompson and observe that immigrants in sufficient numbers present a significant problem if even they are “better than the local average in ability and character”. Consider the British in India, for example. If immigrants are inferior, they drag the invaded nation down. If they are superior, they tend to set themselves up to rule over the natives in their own interest and at the natives’ expense.

Second, David Ricardo IS economic ignorance. Ricardo believed in a) the cost-of-production theory of value, which is a precursor of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, b) the price-of-corn theory of profit, and c) the theory of comparative advantage, all of which are widely recognized by modern economists to be intrinsically false. His mode of argument was so hopelessly inept that Joseph Schumpeter even mocked it in his epic History of Economic Analysis.

His interest was in the clear-cut result
of direct, practical significance. In order to get this he cut that
general system to pieces, bundled up as large parts of it as
possible, and put them in cold storage – so that as many things as
possible should be frozen and ‘given’. He then piled one simplifying
assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by
these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables
between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way
relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as
tautologies…. The habit of applying results of this character to
the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.

Third, David Ricardo did not take immigration into account when he copied the concept from Robert Torrens, who introduced the theory of comparative advantage in An Essay on the External Corn Trade. As Ambrose Evans-Pritcher noted:

Ricardo described a world where free trade in goods was opening up, but labour markets remained largely closed. This is no longer the case. Globalisation bids up the wages of high-skilled engineers or software analysts towards international levels wherever they live.

Since Ricardo never took immigration into account, we shall do so on his behalf. I direct your attention to his original postulates from On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

Unit Labor Costs

Britain 100 cloth 110 wine
Portugal 90 cloth 80 wine

In the absence of transportation costs, it is efficient for Britain to produce cloth, and Portugal to produce wine, since, assuming that the two goods trade at an equal price (1 unit of cloth for 1 unit of wine) Britain can then obtain wine at a cost of 100 labor units by producing cloth and trading, rather than 110 units by producing the wine itself, and Portugal can obtain cloth at a cost of 80 units by trade rather than 90 by production.

Now we introduce immigration into the equation and the free movement of labor. Obviously both wine and cloth laborers will move to Britain, since they believe they will receive an 11 percent raise and a 38 percent raise respectively. However, once they get there, the doubling of the labor supply in Britain this immigration causes will quickly cause the price of labor to fall. It will fall considerably.

This is great for Britain! It can now produce the same amount of cloth as before for price of only 47.5 units of labor and the same amount of wine for 47.5 labor units as well, thereby obtaining an equal quantity of both wine and cloth for less than what it used to cost to produce the wine alone. This will vastly increase profits in the British cloth and wine industries, as well as creating a windfall for the financial industry investing those profits! Granted, this is because wages have fallen by 50 percent; other consequences include how the newly unemployed British workers go on the dole and turn to crime, the new Portuguese immigrants are heavily inclined to vote for the Labour Party thereby imbalancing the British political system, and British women begin bearing half-Portuguese children and lower the average IQ of the next generation from 100 to 97.5, but those are mostly non-economic factors and therefore don’t count as far as economists are concerned.

They sound suspiciously familiar, though, don’t they?

In conclusion, we can see that open immigration and the free movement of labor is not only economically desirable, but is vastly preferable to comparative advantage by a factor of 105/200 and to autarky by a factor of 105/210. QED. What else can we conclude from this exercise of the Ricardian Vice?

  1. Ricardo implicitly postulated the immobility of labor.
  2. The mobility of labor not only fails to disprove comparative advantage, but actually strengthens the case for even freer trade… at least if you’re in the higher labor cost country and you only look at the labor costs.
  3. The mobility of labor will eliminate international trade since everyone will be living in Britain.
  4. The mobility of labor operates to the detriment of labor.
  5. Ricardo’s logic is remarkably stupid.

But my argument against free trade does not rest on David Ricardo’s intellectual corpse. It is not even, strictly speaking, economic in nature. This is the four-step Vox Day Argument Against Free Trade.

  1. Free trade, in its true, complete, and intellectually coherent
    form, is not limited to the free movement of goods, but includes the
    free movement of capital and labor as well. (The “invisible judicial line” doesn’t magically become visible simply because human bodies are involved.) 
  2. The difference between domestic economies and the global
    international economy is not trivial, but is substantive, material, and
    based on significant genetic, cultural, traditional, and legal
    differences between various self-identified peoples.
  3. Free trade is totally incompatible with national sovereignty,
    democracy, and self-determination, as well as the existence of
    independent nation-states with the right and ability to set their own
    laws according to the preferences of their nationals.
  4. Therefore, free trade must be opposed by every sovereign,
    democratic, or self-determined people, be they American, Chinese,
    German, or Zambian, who wish to preserve themselves as a free and
    distinct nation possessed of its own culture, traditions, and laws.

The joke ain’t over

Ed Driscoll laughs at progressives:

A decade ago, while reflecting back on his seminal “Radical Chic” article in New York magazine in 1970, Tom Wolfe said, “I just thought it was a scream, because it was so illogical by all ordinary thinking. To think that [Leonard Bernstein,] living in an absolutely stunning duplex on Park Avenue could be having in all these guys who were saying, ‘We will take everything away from you if we get the chance,’ which is what their program spelled out, was the funniest thing I had ever witnessed.”

But then 45 years later, the self-styled “Progressives” at PBS still don’t get that the joke is on them — not the least of which because their worldview has been updated in nearly half a century.

It’s a bit ironic that a conservative would laugh at Leonard Bernstein for failing to understand that the Black Panthers would take everything away from him if given the chance, considering how often conservatives tend to wax emotional about the myriad ways in which the mass movement of peoples is enriching America.

Then again, we often see the absurdity in others much more clearly than we do in ourselves. But unlike the progressives, I expect that 45 years from now, any cuckservatives still surviving will understand that the joke, such as it was, was on them.

I expect them to plead “we didn’t know it would turn out like that!” And that, I think, one can accept. People are wrong. But what will not be forgiven is the way they viciously attacked those who have been warning them about the house burning down since it was little more an obvious electrical fault. Now the fire is not only burning, but engulfing entire rooms, and the cuckservatives are still sitting on the coach in the living room, watching television, insisting that nothing is wrong.

Why cuckservatives cry

The recent hashtag fireworks between the pro-immigration and anti-immigration right appears to be the second step of a long-awaited political battle that I have expected for more than a decade now. For years, conservatives afraid of being called racist have stupidly attempted to finesse the immigration issue, claiming that “it’s not the immigration, it’s the illegality” while loudly declaring their support for LEGAL immigration to balance their opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. But the distinction was always meaningless; the behavior of the individual immigrant and the cumulative effects of mass immigration have historically had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the act of immigration. The intra-Right conflict we’re seeing now is in part the result of the Obama Administration punching right through that ridiculous position by simply legalizing larger-scale immigration than before. This is the second step of the battle; the first step was the publication of Ann Coulter’s Adios America, which marked the first time a major American conservative media figure besides Pat Buchanan had the courage to finally come out and admit that the real problem with immigration is a) the quality of the immigrants, and b) the quantity of the immigrants.

I am an immigrant myself; my children are second-generation immigrants. Keep in mind that to the extent you consider us to be more-or-less normal Americans, that is precisely how all of the first- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians living in America are still more-or-less normal Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians. The only difference is that we’ve been here longer, we’re more integrated, and we speak the language. Potete domandare Giuseppe cosi. Geographical translocation is not magic. Move enough Mexicans into California, you don’t make them Californians, you turn California into Mexico. I’ve seen the same thing over here on a smaller scale in British expat colonies where people who have lived in Italy for 15 years don’t speak more than 10 words of Italian, still drink tea instead of espresso and can’t cook worth a damn. Being there doesn’t feel like Italy, it feels like being in England, and more properly English than Londonistan is these days.

I should probably mention that if you’re going to try to disqualify me as an anti-Mexican racist simply because I observe the indisputable truth, my response is simple: va fanculo, my great-grandfather rode with Villa, fought with Villa, and barely escaped Villa’s assassins. The truth is the truth regardless of the genetic heritage of the individual observing it.

The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a brilliant essay on the martial implications of immigration that will be published in Volume 2 of Riding the Red Horse, which I am now beginning to assemble. And the remarkable thing is that he reaches a disturbingly similar conclusion to Heartiste’s well-known aphorism, Diversity + Proximity = War, only one that is even stronger. One reason the world is in the process of descending into war all over the globe is due to the unprecedented mass movement of peoples – as Umberto Eco pointed out more than a decade ago, to call it “immigration” is fundamentally a misnomer – and the sheer scale of these mass movements makes war inevitable.

Remember, the entry of the Nazis into Austria was arguably more legal than the actions of the Obama administration with regards to immigration. The Nazis even let the immigrated invaded Austrians vote on it in a national referendum, which is something neither the Democrats and the Republican #cuckservatives would permit the American people. But the end result of the Anschluss was no different than the Nazi’s subsequent illegal immigration into invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nazi rule.

I think Mike Cernovich’s definition of #cuckservative is probably the most useful one. If you are in any way an advocate for those who intend to rape and pillage you and yours, you are a #cuckservative. I also think that what we’re seeing is a generational divide. People my age and older tend to view things from a perspective of a permanent white majority. So, they tend to view everything from a view of racial noblesse oblige. They believe America’s success can be shared with the New Americans without that success being destroyed.

The younger generation of white Americans know better. They know they are just another racial group among many, larger, more divided, advantaged in some ways, disadvantaged in others, and with a target tattooed on their chests due to their historical “privilege”. Those inclined to buy into the rainbow mythology become SJWs or submissive moderates, those who are not don’t buy into any of it, including the various aspects of “melting pot” theology in which their conservative elders still foolishly believe. They know that what their elders still think to be theoretically achievable is impossible, because unlike their elders, they didn’t grow up with diversity being a theoretical objective to be celebrated, but a terrible reality to be suffered.

The most ridiculous thing about #cuckservatism is that it’s an inherently losing strategy. If your primary political objective is to avoid being called racist, you will lose. And then you will be called racist anyhow.

Getting killed over here

So they won’t kill anyone over there… is that really how it’s supposed to work?

4 Marines killed, 1 injured at Chattanooga military recruiting center.

UPDATE: “Two law enforcement sources told CBS News that the shooting suspect was identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.”

The problem isn’t that there might be a backlash. The problem is that there won’t be, at least not yet. Do Americans really need to wait until the Somalis suicide-bomb the Megamall before repatriating all of them back to their homelands?