It’s only rape


Maybe you’ve heard by now about the recent report detailing how over the last 16 years more than 1,400 children have been abused and gang raped, and how they were ignored by police, in fact viewed with contempt by police, and how their parents were arrested when they tried to rescue them.

I know the situation sounds dire, considering that the numbers suggest that around 5% of the city’s children were molested or forced into prostitution. We all know rape is a terrible thing, maybe one of the worst things, but hold up a moment. I have something important you must hear: relax, it’s just rape.

You see, the thing is, the rapists weren’t white.  So don’t get too upset about this. If people were to get upset about it, there could be some unfortunate backlash against the non-white community in the UK. Of course, you are a good person and would never think ill of a non-white minority group, but the reality is that there are many ignorant white people who might get too upset, and would start to be racist. And that would be bad, because racism is the worst. Much worse than mass rape and replacement.

Things might get so bad that people might start to question the value of mass immigration. They might notice how this would never have happened if not for ideologically motivated politicians trying to punish their enemies. And without mass immigration, we will never have our multicultural utopia. We’d be back to boring whitebread low-crime low-excitement communities. Just let them continue raping children, and things will be better for them. The immigrants, I mean.

While you’re doing the right thing and forgetting about this whole unpleasant episode, make sure you don’t remember that time when police in Norway noticed that all the rapists in Oslo were non-Western. Because there is a pattern here: every time someone notices these things, people start to wonder just what the benefits of mass immigration are, and they have less sympathy for the immigrant victims who are just trying to make a living.  We need to let them continue doing a little rape once in a while, because we’re nice people. Keep in mind that it could be worse, it could be racism. So relax, it’s only rape.

An actual crisis hides behind the fake issue of climate change


Manipulating large groups of people requires deception that is plausible enough to take the place of what they should actually be thinking. This leads toward a need to create symbolic issues that conceal complex problems behind simple yes/no style plans. These plans universally revolve around quantity, meaning replacement of one institution with another, instead of qualitative improvement, or taking what exists and improving it (similar to evolution) until it works.

As stated here before, the “climate change” propaganda creates a vast boondoggle bonanza that empowers just about any idiot to do anything and justify it as reducing carbon, raising awareness or any of a dozen other hare-brained justifications that give good cover to larceny and parasitism. Media tells us that climate change is universally accepted and we’d have to be poor, ignorant, and bigoted morons to consider any other truth. Most people want to rise in life, so they’ll never admit to such unfashionable views.

The more likely issue remains the changes humans have wrought to the environment by changing what’s on the surface of Earth. The more people we produce, the more farms we need and the more land we cover in concrete. The result is a radical adjustment in how much land becomes available for vegetation and wildlife. As it turns out, this is crucial, because the amount of vegetation expands with the rise of carbon in the atmosphere, mainly because CO2 is a vital nutrient that plants use in the photosynthetic process.

A recent study found that a large rise in CO2 sequestration is due to growth of plant life in Australia:

Each year, land plants and the ocean absorb about half of the 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.

On average, says Canadell, carbon sinks on land absorb around 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon, but in 2011 this figure spiked to about 4.1 billion, accompanied by a big drop in atmospheric CO2.

“The land had removed more anthropogenic CO2 than ever before recorded,” he says.

The first thing to note here is that this is in fact reason for optimism. The Earth is capable of absorbing CO2 at places where people did not expect it to occur:

“We saw this incredible carbon sink in the southern hemisphere,” says Canadell. “The semi-arid regions were playing the biggest role and particularly the grassy component.”

“We never thought savannahs of the world could potentially have this effect.”

Even more surprising, he says, was that 60 per cent of the extra plant growth was in Australia’s semi-arid areas, north of Alice Springs.

The authors argue that much of the carbon sequestered may soon be emitted again, because of droughts, but that’s not a certainty. Part of the reason to be optimistic is because plants are not just passive recipients of climatic conditions, rather, plants help engineer their own local climate, creating the conditions in which more plants can grow.

Studies show that Australia’s droughts are largely caused by the direct effects of land clearing, rather than greenhouse gas dependent climate change. This is because forests have the ability to soak up excessive rain during wet periods, while releasing water during excessively dry periods.

If forced to choose between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of native vegetation, it’s very clear to me personally that the destruction of native vegetation is the worse evil of the two by far. Admittedly, part of that is due to the fact that I am convinced that we will be incapable of maintaining the industrial machine for much longer. Gail Tverberg believes that we simply won’t have enough oil to emit enough CO2 to reach above a two degree temperature increase.

There are large positive feedbacks involved in climate change that nearly everyone is familiar with, but what is very rarely if ever discussed are the significant negative feedbacks produced by plants. Trees respond to an increase in temperatures by producing more biogenic organic volatile compounds, which create a type of fog that reflects light and reduces temperatures. A similar mechanism occurs in the oceans, where plankton produces dimethyl sulfide, which changes albedo by encouraging the formation of clouds. An increase in temperatures produces an increase in plankton, which thus increases the amount of dimethyl sulfide. Life attempts to create the type of conditions suitable for life.

Of course, the important point to take home is that this negative feedback is highly dependent on a functioning biosphere. If there are no forests, there are no biogenic organic volatile compounds. Trying to prevent climate change is a very noble goal, but it increasingly appears doomed. If you tell governments to stop using fossil fuels, you tell them: Be sure to use your fossil fuels now, before a global carbon tax agreement makes them worthless or a successful alternative makes them worthless. Governments are actually now in a race to exploit whatever fossil fuels they still have, before the world agrees not to use any fossil fuels anymore. In addition, with solutions like biofuel, the cure is worse than the disease.

Even more, you supplant a realistic plan — clear spaces for plants — with an unrealistic one, which is to “raise awareness” such that every person is guilted into buying green products, buying cars with expensive and toxic batteries, giving carbon cap subsidies to the third world, and similar symbolic surrogate activities which don’t address the actual problem. Further, this mistaken plan allows destructive practices like subsidizing population growth, importing immigrants and continued building of cities to expand rather than contract.

Population distinguishes this issue. Although a guy in the Democratic Republic of Congo may use a fraction of the fossil fuels you use, the difference between the amount of land required to feed the two of you is much smaller. Nobody wants to touch this problem, as sadly people would rather pretend that a problem of this magnitude will simply be solved by STEM-nerds developing a new techno-fix and a variety of irrelevant politically correct feel-good measures.

By not creating room for other countries to send their excess people abroad, those countries become forced to address their own internal population problem. This type of insanity, where countries that aim to be at the forefront when it comes to preventing climate change continue to let their populations grow despite their low fertility rate is made possible by a technocratic mathematical vision that treats trees not as life-creating participants in their own local climate, but rather as carbon stocks that can be chopped down, as long as you make sure to build hideous wind mills or place solar panels on your roofs to meet your CO2 quota.

No politician will find these issues to be winners at the ballot-box, which people choose easy options and simplistic lies in favor of complex truths and long-term commitments. Thus they invent the surrogates we suffer under to this day, oblivious to the consequences because those in turn create new problems which create new opportunities for popularity at the voting booth. Democracy makes itself into a product and the result is a loss of ability to clear aside the ersatz issues and focus on the actual problem.

Reverse migration

too_many_people_for_beautyAn estimated one hundred young men left the Netherlands to go to Syria to help their brethren fighting in the civil war. More are leaving soon.

Investigation suggests that this reverse migration consists of Netherlands-born muslims, usually with pretty decent school grades, radicalized only after receiving feedback from a small group of similarly-minded people and the immensely popular “internet imams.” Other euro-countries are also seeing the rise of these “sharia-tourists” too. Mosques, parents, politicians and independent groups in Syria are discouraging youth from coming to the country to fight. They opt for the most reasonable alternative, which is giving money for aid.

Until recently, discussion on this topic has been limited. All current discussions produce no answers, only the same circular reasoning. The result is that important questions are ignored in order to preserve the binary nature of politics. Since votes are like purchases, political ideas are “sold” to groups cultivated by promises. You are either good or bad, with us or against us. But there is another dimension to this situation.

The fundamental question is this: if a citizen of a European nation stands for introducing sharia law in that state, what in earth’s name is he doing in democratic, Jewish, Christian, pluralist Europe? People are like this are completely incompatible with the surrounding society they live in, and yet are mysteriously out of sight by the governments of such states. It is not surprising that they choose to leave for a society that, while perhaps less affluent, is more compatible with the values that are clearly close to their hearts.

As we all notice daily, life is full of choices. We each as individuals make choices every day. Some important, some unimportant. But we all have to live by the consequences of the choices we make. If I want to migrate to another society that offers what seems like a better life to me by my own individual standard, then I’m free to start working there with a visa and from there build up my own position.

Not all of us should make such a deal. People work best and contribute the most when they are comfortable with the people and society around them.

As a country, you have a responsibility to not infect the other apples in the basket. And that leads to the more dangerous questions about this issue. What kind of signal do you give the law-abiding European worker when governments respond to this situation by making two sets of rules, one for the Europeans and one for the immigrant-born? Is a democracy injected with skilled fighters, who fought for sharia law on another continent, a safer place? How are we going to take care of these people when they return maimed and with PTSD? But most importantly, if we’re going to have people here, should we make sure the values of their hearts are compatible with our culture, values and habits?

I can imagine that Americans have way more intellectual context about this, since they are surrounded by soldiers who fought to protect the American way of life. Europeans who are engulfed by ex-sharia fighters do not need PhDs to tell that this situation is unstable. Unless your brains are caught in an Amsterdam threesome with a bag of marijuana, a cheap hooker and a tram, you can see how illogical this two-faced approach is for Europe.

Fundamentally, this is a question of responsibility. If I want to fight a battle for sharia rights, than it is my right to do so! However, at that point my government has also got the right to cut me loose and to refuse to let me participate in western society anymore. At that point, I have chosen a different values system than the one that is European. This way each party finds the surroundings that are most comfortable to them.

This is exactly what needs to be done. Reverse migration shows us the choices that people make when they think about values, and the schism that they keep in their hearts. Instead of forcing migrants to abandon their values, we should stop being two-faced and state clearly what we value. This forces each person to make the choice and face the consequences. If someone is incompatible here, we should cut them loose to find a place that fits their needs.

The problem with Mexico is the problem with us

As our southern neighbor, Mexico shows up quite a bit in US policy discussions. The problem is that all of those involve critique of how we deal with Mexico on specific issues, not an overview of the relationship between the United States and Mexico.

If we examine it further, we can see how the United States is a disaster for Mexico.

This is not as simple as the drug war. If you were looking for an article which, sheepishly condescending like a kindergarten teacher, would tell you that changing a single piece of our policy could magically fix everything, you’re on the wrong blog.

The United States is a disaster for Mexico for two reasons:

  • Wealth disparity. We are a wealthy nation; Mexico is poor (but not as poor as it has been, and not as rich as it was under the Spaniards). Therefore, labor is going to flow one way and cash another. This will have several consequences:
    1. Instability. Mexico’s economy will become accustomed to the flow of money from the north and come to depend on it.
    2. Surrogacy. Mexico will find no need to develop its own economy for its own ends, since it expects the American economy to be its host.
    3. Resentment. It’s a self-esteem blow to lose self-sufficiency. Not only does the host become resented, but so does the dependent. Mexico’s self-esteem takes a whack and hatred for the US increases.
  • Incompatibility. No two objects can occupy the same space; no two types of government can occupy the same nation; no two cultures can occupy the same civilization. Diversity has historically always failed, and where it exists in the modern world, exists as two things:
    1. Food and talking points. Any conversation about diversity inevitably involves both ethnic food and self-back-patting for being so open-minded, compassionate, tolerant, experimental, adventurous, on the wild side, etc. People of the majority ethnic group advocate diversity to appear holier than the rest of us, but when pressed on its advantages, they can only name ethnic food. Why? In addition to other factors, because diversity self-reduces. When you import people of many cultures to one place, they lose those cultures by assimilation, and so all that’s left is the local buffet.
    2. Gigantic social cost. Not just all the moneymaker programs that hire useless people to tell the rest of us how to live, but the costs of trying to fit different standards into the same boat and the result fracas; also, the inevitable conflict borne out of resentment for the majority and thus guerrilla tactics including crime and violence, then fading away into the ghetto. These show up in every diverse culture. Usually the minority is fully aware of having been imported to do unskilled labor and hates it.

    We are taught by repetition through schools, helpful government propaganda TV programs like Sesame Street and Schoolhouse Rock, and even the opinions of our favorite entertainers, that diversity is our strength. In fact, it’s a futile quest to cram together two or more opposing things:

  • Blame. When you put two kids together, it’s too easy for them to blame each other for their own inability to stop fidgeting and fighting. With the USA and Mexico being semi-conjoined yet not the same nation, the two are constantly blaming each other. Mexico blames the USA for Mexico’s inability to stop drug lords from running its country; the USA blames Mexico for the USA’s inability to stop its citizens from getting high on anything they can get their hands on.
  • Bad escape valve. Emigrating to the USA forms an escape valve for Mexicans that encourages them to avoid fixing the vast and structural problems in their culture; in the meantime, cheap Mexican labor encourages Americans to accept more mediocrity, laziness and a spreading of the labor pool as opposed to a concentration of knowledge and refinement of knowledge regarding many of these tasks. Even more, the two nations feed off each other:

    On Monday, the Central Bank of Mexico reported that remittances or wire transfers to Mexico increased by 5.48 percent between January and March over the same period in 2010.

    In the first quarter of the year, remittances rose to $5.1 billion, from the $4.83 billion in the first three months of 2010.

    The announcement further confirms the results of Pew Hispanic Center study released in late 2010, which found that while every demographic of native-born workers has lost millions of jobs during this deep recession, foreign-born workers have actually increased their employment numbers.

    Since June 2009, immigrants (including illegal aliens) have gained 656,000 jobs, while U.S. born workers lost 1.2 million jobs during that same period. –

    This won’t end well. Mexico suffers when its labor pool goes to the USA; USA suffers when money leaves the country and, because jobs are dumbed down to accommodate the unskilled and inexpensive labor picked up off the curb-corners of Home Depot stores, the USA drives skilled labor out of construction and other basic jobs.

When you see the shocking violence, or the appalling death toll, remember that those are effects of the fundamental imbalance in US-Mexico relations, not causes in themselves:

For anyone dreaming of an imminent end to the criminal bloodbath tormenting Mexico, April was perhaps the cruelest month.

More than 1,400 gangland killings were clocked, by one newspaper’s count, giving April the highest death toll of the 53 months since President Felipe Calderon unleashed the military and federal police against the country’s crime syndicates. The toll includes more than 300 bodies pulled from mass graves near the South Texas border and in other northern Mexican states.

Many of the graves’ victims were killed weeks, even months earlier. Still, nearly 40 people a day were slain last month, according to Milenio, the newspaper that tallied the 1,402 deaths. In April’s last week alone, gunmen abducted 11 city police officers, including the force’s chief, in a Monterrey suburb. – Houston Chronicle

We watch these tragedies daily, and notice how many immigrants drown or die of exposure trying to get across. Do we have a solution?

The liberal “solution” is to import more voters by legalizing illegal immigrants. The only thing that gives them pause is that Mexican immigrants do not behave like good Democrat stoolies; in fact, they not only resent African-Americans as much as the white majority, but tend to favor conservative social values, which stands in opposition to Democratic policy.

The conservative “solution” is either to continue keeping these immigrants illegal so we can pay them nothing (which in turn guts the American economy by slanting it toward unskilled, low-cost labor and away from high-tech solutions and well-trained, specialized labor) or to bloviate about how terrible it is these people are crossing our Holy Border to come work for table scraps.

A new way must be found, because right now, the situation isn’t helping either nation. Clearly some members of both civilizations are seeing benefit, but only at the expense of others, and in turn the whole.

The Worm

He saw the worm, exposed to the hot sun and dry air, and felt pity. “Worm–my friend–are you alright?”

“No!  I have been forcefully removed from my environment.  All I ever wanted was to live untill I was old enough to produce children.  But I was torn away from my home, and now I will die here, childless and

The man furrowed his brow.  “That doesn’t sound fair at all.”  

After hesitating a moment, for which he immediately felt guilty, he softened his countenance and said, “come, enter into me and you will have a new home.  Drink my body fluids, let their nutrients nourish you.  Live in me and you will grow enough to produce children.”

“How different you are from other men!  Most hate me and oppress me.”

“Yes, I suppose am indeed kind.”  The man thought about the shameful selfishness of other men, and shook his head solemnly.  He himself, he concluded, must simply have a more developed sense of what’s right than them, though it probably wasn’t their fault.  

“But also,” he added, after realizing a better reason for lodging the worm, “I am sure we will become great friends, and I am sure that one day you and your children will grow strong enough to return the favor!”

“Of course!  You are very wise for knowing this.”

Weeks passed, and though the man was pleased with his newfound purpose, and would often tell the other men about his worm friend and how much he was helping him, he could eventually no longer ignore the growing hunger and sickness he felt in his body.

“Worm, it seems to me that much of my food–very much, lately–is not being used by my body.”  He searched carefully for the right words to use so as to not offend his poor guest.  “Would you happen to know
anything about that?”

“In fact I do.  Frankly, I’m a bit concerned that it took you this long to ask.  You see, even though you claim to want to help me, your body is actively fighting me.  This is exactly the same oppression that I have endured from other men.  Perhaps you are just like them: concerned only with food, and not doing what’s right.  You have so much food here in your stomach, do you really think you need it all?”

The man was moved.  “I deserve this sick feeling, for being so greedy. I give you my word, I will investigate this injustice that is being done to you.  When I find the organ in my body that hurts you, I will cut it out.”

“Such a novel, forward-thinking promise you have made!”

The man was pleased.  But with passing time his sickness grew, and no quantity of food could satiate.  So at last, left with no other option, he planted himself in his cellar, and ate.  Feces accumulated below him, but still he ate.  “I must not fail my friend.  I must not be an oppressive man.”

“Then you must try harder,” scolded the worm.  “Your body is failing and can no longer provide me with what I need.  I suspect this whole arrangement was a plot from the very beginning.  You have tricked me. You are the worst kind of oppressor, because you lied to me.  I have a right to nutrition, and despite your empty bloviation, I have not been given enough.  Though I must now die, I dream and hope that my 27,000 children will each one day hatch and find a righteous man who truly believes in worm rights.  Until that day, and even beyond it, I will curse you from the depths of worm hell.”

Tears poured down the man’s rotting emaciated cheeks.  “Please… please forgive me,” were his last words.

National system needs states support

punishing_americaHaving 300 million people, 50 states plus protectorates to manage is a significant challenge. Add two long term war campaigns in the Middle East and who knows how many other dedicated commitments abroad and it comes as little surprise that the national budget is straining.

Arizona alone steps up to the plate to help shoulder some of the burden for America. This one state is going above and beyond what some of the others are only yet considering and that is improved law enforcement.

“Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute,” she said on April 23, 2010, the day she signed the bill.


Less interested in reality than in sensationalism that gets an uninformed crowd buying products, the mass media has done its part to infect public reality with needless controversy. Nonetheless, as the dust settles a bit, the facts remain intact. Arizona is keeping the privilege of American citizenship at a premium and taking some of the burden off the national budget.

Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.

There is nothing now but deception, corruption, and intimidation, the usual Third World symptoms, preventing the other 49 from doing their part for America:

Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.


With a $13 trillion and steadily rising debt, it is becoming clearer that more than just one state needs to consider taking up some of America’s burden. In so doing, they may also reduce the amount of public assistance benefits doled out and get the unemployed, who are already citizens, working again doing tasks Americans have as always. Consider it state budget control.

The only loser is the federally-defined criminal and those who aid him, rather than punishing the existing citizen and voting taxpayer as is the case right now.

Abandoning reality


I’m just going to dive right in with this one. Here is how the mendacious semantics we are offered destroys the credibility of the liberal democratic views of our time. The following popular statements and assertions deserve exposure:

  • blend humanity to end all conflict

Implication: race is hereditary.
Why then are we asked to celebrate diversity if it is the cause of conflict, such conflict is to be avoided, and conflict is avoidable by eliminating diversity?

  • race is a social construct

Implication: race is only appearances.
Are we then to value or to shun these social construct appearances called diversity?

  • it is racist to mention race, a social construct
  • a cruel triviality, diversity, is our greatest strength

Implication: only select positions regarding race, which is either hereditary or appearances by definition as convenient, are acceptable.

Let’s assume race is trivial criteria, meaning race is little more than image or aesthetic appeal. Then, choosing McDonald’s rather than Burger King is about as trivial, but strangely this choice provokes no controversy.

Stranger still, we certainly aren’t required by the central government, by way of a non-discrimination act, to select McDonald’s, Burger King, and several other diverse fast food restaurants during the same lunch hour!

Failing to choose all during the same lunch hour logically means the remainder are left out. The implications of everyone leaving out all but the same of these trivial fast food choices then are likely manifold.

People would be harmed by unemployment. Fast food business discrimination is therefore an economic problem for society at large and harmful to the owners and employees victimized.

These trivial fast food discriminations then lead to the very same consequences offered as justifications when race is the selection criteria.

But, back in reality there are people who favor McDonald’s, others who favor Burger King, and still others who choose the less known competitors. Fast food selections in reality occur in parallel and are not uniform with only one ever chosen.

Nonetheless, there’s a supreme victor, a runner up, and several other surviving contenders. It’s economic natural selection and supremacism at work in another form.

Because people are directly involved, the same human consequences of success or mass suffering occur should any of these businesses rise or fail as a result of discrimination. For this example, we’re just swapping the labels for races for the names of fast food businesses.

Next, we come to the growing conflict between established science and the inconsistent public reality outlined above.

Paradoxically, while the Religious Right engages in attacks on Darwin’s theory of what animals evolved from, the left and center clamps down upon Darwin’s theory of what humans evolved to.

Nor do many liberal commentators know that much of Darwin’s second most important book, The Descent of Man, consists of an evolutionary explanation of human racial differences.


We can easily move beyond human biodiversity to examine the consequences of sheer numbers. Once again we witness a consistent parting of company between public reality embodied in liberal politicians and the facts that science bears out.

SUPER-sizing Australia’s population may have grave consequences on our health, boosting rates of obesity, asthma and depression, a new study warns.

The findings, published online in the Medical Journal of Australia, come amid a debate on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s call for a “Big Australia”.


In the midst of ongoing financial stress threatening to curtail vital public services, our dangerously out of touch humanitarian idealists simultaneously encourage thousands of new arrivals.

Science with economic reality and public opinion are completely out of contact with one another even as they share the same society. It is as if the presently irreconcilable dynamics of Dionysian and Apollonian flavored metaphysics overshadows all modern civilization.

Protectionism For Illegals Reaches New Low

The man charged with killing a father and two sons on a San Francisco street last month was one of the youths who benefited from the city’s long-standing practice of shielding illegal immigrant juveniles who committed felonies from possible deportation, The Chronicle has learned.

Edwin Ramos, now 21, is being held on three counts of murder in the June 22 deaths of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. They were shot near their home in the Excelsior district when Tony Bologna, driving home from a family picnic, briefly blocked the gunman’s car from completing a left turn down a narrow street, police say.

In neither instance did officials with the city’s Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency’s policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States.


Let’s put this in plain terms so we all understand what’s going on here:

1. A city known for its yuppie element, who are more concerned about hiking and vineyards than about the problems they face in their own city, have decided to enforce a law which essentially contradicts federal immigration statutes. This practice kept a known felon on the streets for years.

2. This offender/felon/illegal immigrant – a known gang member by now – decides to kill a man and his two sons, right in the street, because they were blocking his car from making a left-hand turn.

3. A US Taxpayer, likely born & raised in the United States and maybe even in that very neighborhood of San Francisco, is no longer around, but his murderer is, and it’s been realized far too late that the murderer was walking streets that he had no right to be walking in the first place.

A healthier society would do away with these individuals – legal or illegal – and either dispose of them on sight, or send them into a community for murderers. Then again, a healthier society wouldn’t tolerate trash like this on its streets.

Targeting The Wrong Foreign Nationals


Apparently our government has decided to wake up and start throwing people in jail who don’t belong here.

Oops – wrong people! Our government wants nothing to do with jailing illegals, sending them out of the country, and building a border fence. But a guy from Calabria (Calabrese people stopped emigrating to America en masse about thirty years ago)? He must be a threat; lock him up and throw away the key!

This guy was here to see his girlfriend, so they lied to him, told him he couldn’t go back to Italy, and left him to rot in a jail cell. Good thing he wasn’t just here to sight-see on his own, or we likely never would have heard about him. And of course the government is not in the business of apologizing when they’ve made a mistake.

This is an example of a perfectly legal visit from a foreign national; our government is too busy locking up the wrong people to realize the true problem: illegal immigrants bring down our economy for citizens (who deserve better treatment), and this “they do the jobs that no one else wants” logic is backward. People would have been fine doing those jobs had illegal immigrants never been allowed to stay here and work in the first place; if you introduce a population of people who are willing to work for less and add the moral hazard of a welfare state for the formerly employed citizens, it’ll sure as hell seem like they don’t want to work. Why would they? They’re getting paid by your tax dollars to reproduce, shop, and build up credit card debt.

This is what happens when economy and industry run society. Mix in a little political correctness and you’ve got a backward system targeting sacrificial lambs to slaughter, while ignoring the real problem.

Colonization vs. Immigration

[full article text]

I’ve often been accused of racism in the past few years because I’m against excessive immigration. I keep retorting that I’m not a racist, I’m a culturalist- I’m fine with immigrants who want to come here to join our American/Canadian culture and all the high lifestyle standards that provides, in return for being some of the hardest working people in the world. I’m against people who want to colonize our land, bring in their culture, and replace it with theirs. I’m also against bringing in more people to areas where the carrying capacity is already at it’s limit.

I’ve been rightly or wrongly criticized for that in the past- but apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way: Illiad of UserFriendly Fame, who apparently lives near a casino I once did technical support at in the mid 1990s, wrote a very good essay on his blog about the difference between “immigrants willing to join the community” and “immigrants who cut themselves off”. Just so happens most of the ones down here in the states who are of the later variety start their life in the United States with an overtly criminal act, but the attitude is the same. They’re sending the message, by forcing Spanish on the rest of us (or Cantonese in the sake of Richmond, BC) and by breaking our laws to come here, that they don’t want to become a part of our community, that they only want to colonize us.

I’d also point out that’s exactly what we English and French speakers in North America did to the Native Americans- and we should learn from their failure what happens when you let too many immigrants in who don’t want to be a part of your community.

[click for essay noted above]

Very nicely written summary of the differences between immigration waves of prior generations (Irish/Italian in the Eastern US) and the newer, mostly illegal waves of immigration occurring today from our neighbors to the south.