Posts Tagged ‘immigration’
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017
Sweden: once the land of Vikings, now completely pacified, probably because when there was nothing else to conquer the Vikings locked themselves up in longhouses and went neurotic with lack of purpose. At that point, Sweden began shifting Left and it now approaches Full Soviet denial of reality, soon to be followed by the police state as social order totally breaks down.
With his usual brash audacity, President Trump called out Sweden for its failed immigration policies. The goodwhites in media, academia and social circles claimed he was insane and that no problem existed. Then, Sweden exploded into flames as immigrant riots racked the nation. Although the media is in silent retreat, it is hard to deny the scope of the problem:
There is a general threat from terrorism. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places visited by foreigners.
There is considered to be a heightened threat of terrorist attack globally against UK interests and British nationals, from groups or individuals motivated by the conflict in Iraq and Syria. You should be vigilant at this time.
This is advice from the UK government to travelers. When the media is uniformly denying something, but those who have actual skin in the game — meaning they get in trouble if people get hurt, a condition which does not apply to the media — warn people of the problem, it is clear that the immigration policy responsible for these immigrant riots has failed bigly.
Thursday, January 26th, 2017
As usual, a great and insightful article from Garvey’s Ghost appears, this time discussing the impossibility of proving voter fraud that indicates that it is occurring because that was the intent of those who formulated state-level voting systems:
Many [Democrat run] States and cities have laws in place that allow people to show up on election day and vote without any challenge whatsoever. In fact some of these laws explicitly forbid asking citizenship status or anything like that because they call it “voter intimidation”. Thus anyone can walk into a voting precinct on election day and without any barriers cast a ballot. Since no one can challenge these voters no one knows how many people have voted illegally.
…Up to 1965 the US was a 90% white nation. Since the passage of the immigration act and various amnesties all of which were passed with assurances that the balance of the population would go unchanged, resulted in the white population in the US dropping to around 65%. In any other nation, this would be called ethnic if not racial cleansing in progress. Many of these new comers vote Democrat (Cubans being a huge exception). Democrats therefore have a existential interest in a decreasing white population (so long as they continue to supply the majority of the tax revenue, but that’s another topic). The last election showed that Democrats did best in urban “diverse” locations…
I consider this fraudulent voting. Of course it’s perfectly legal but for a major party to be party in stacking the voter rolls with foreigners in collusion with foreign governments [is] treasonous.
The Left has as usual played the definition game, equating “voter fraud” to “illegal voting.” However, the rules encourage fraudulent voting, or voting by those who have no legitimate right to do so. As a result, and because of the state laws which prohibit retaining data that would allow oversight, voter fraud is the norm in the USA, which was what the Left intended all along with the Hart-Celler act in 1965.
Monday, January 23rd, 2017
Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.
Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.
People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.
One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.
The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.
But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”
The sapling whips back.
The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.
But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:
It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.
But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.
…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.
These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.
This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:
“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”
The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:
“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”
He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”
And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”
This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.
Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.
The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.
If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.
Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:
Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.
Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”
As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.
Trump is acting indirectly and it remains to be seen whether he will cuck or not. However, a rising tide of acknowledgement that diversity has failed — following the recognition in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order that after liberal democracy comes world nationalism — shows us that the people want this to be the first step, an indirect stab at removing diversity, because it is now becoming clear that coexistence between different groups is fatal:
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.
This was apparently even a few years ago, when the UK discussed its guilt-fetishism:
Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.
…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”
The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.
If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.
Saturday, November 26th, 2016
Meet Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General designate of the United Nations. He is here to teach us an important lesson: that most people tend toward “sweet evil” when given any kind of power.
This is not a direct attack on Mr. Guterres, who although he is a Communist deserving a helicopter ride, is the effect and not the cause of the problem. The problem is that people are monkeys, and monkeys do what makes other monkeys like them, and this leads them to pick things which signal a good appearance.
However, in reality, that which looks “good” in a social context is not actually good, but merely a convenient fiction that makes everyone in the group look safe. In this way, the word “good” is misleading, because what is good to human intent is not good in terms of end results.
To understand this requires a bit of cause and effect reasoning. For example, to have peace, one must set in place the conditions for peace: balance between nations, no underlying conflicts. But this requires wars and manipulation, and those are scary, so the monkey horde prefers the person who simply passes out bribes and ignores underlying conflicts.
Every single time.
And so you have two choices: either have the best oppress the rest, or the rest will oppress the best. Since we have chosen the latter system, we have clueless people like Antonio Guterres people in power.
From his official biography:
António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres served as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015, heading one of the world’s foremost humanitarian organizations with nearly 10,000 staff working in 125 countries.
As president of the European Council in early 2000, he led the adoption of the “Lisbon Agenda” and co-chaired the first European Union-Africa summit. He was a member of the Portuguese Council of State from 1991 to 2002.
For many years Guterres was active in the Socialist International, a worldwide organization of social democratic political parties. He was the group’s vice-president from 1992 to 1999, co-chairing the African Committee and later the Development Committee. He served as President of the Socialist International from 1999 until mid-2005. In addition, he founded the Portuguese Refugee Council as well as the Portuguese Consumers Association DECO, and served as president of the Centro de Acção Social Universitário, an association carrying out social development projects in poor neighbourhoods of Lisbon, in the early 1970s.
Social justice is “sweet evil”: it makes a group, especially of women, feel better immediately because it is a chance to “do good” without — and this is the key, right here — actually changing our own lives so that we are oriented toward doing good in every area every day. Sweet evil is tokenism, like scapegoating and other human evils.
Right now, Guterres is advancing the agenda that has paid his bills for the past nearly forty years, which is Communism plus multiculturalism. Here he is on the topic of losers in globalism refusing to take in refugees:
He said the world must re-establish international protection for refugees coming from war zones such as Syria, but it would not be easy as developed countries were turning to nationalist agendas.
Europe has struggled to handle a huge influx of refugees, many of whom displaced by the war in Syria. The United States has accepted only a very small number of refugees and may take in even fewer next year.
…”But a lot of people were left behind … In the developed world, (there are) those who have been losers in globalization,” he said. “The recent analysis of the rust belt in the United States, I think, is a clear demonstration of that, when we speak about the elections.”
Read between the lies: good Communists want to take in as many refugees as possible into Europe, which will destroy that civilization and replace it with extreme Leftism. The only people who oppose this are losers who could not hack it in globalism, which means they are weak and obsolete and need to get the Darwin treatment.
You can see the same technique in use by Communist propaganda organ The New York Times in their story The New Workplace Is Agile, and Nonstop. Can You Keep Up? Translation: join in with our insanity, or you are weak and should be destroyed.
The interesting thing is that Communists are never challenging themselves with things like surviving alone in the forest or writing a great symphony. No, the only challenge is conformity itself, because that way you are replacing your mind with the agenda of the ideology, and this means they can control you.
Here is Guterres expressing that Communist vision again:
“The idea that management of migration is a matter of national sovereignty is extremely limited. The truth is that in the meantime, the real controllers of international mobility are the smugglers and criminal organisations. It must be recognised that migration is inevitable and will not stop”, the socialist told the crowd of policymakers and researchers.
…Despite having used the word “burden” to describe giving residence to large numbers of aliens, the 67-year-old went on to declare: “We must convince [Europeans] that migration is inevitable and that it is the multiethnic societies which are multicultural and multireligious who are building wealth.”
…He stated: “When elected officials hesitate to choose between values and the next election, I would advise them to choose values. If they go for short term [electoral gain] they will lose both, because there will always come a time when they lose an election At that point, it becomes very hard to recover the values that have been abandoned.”
Translation: when you act like a good Communist, the Party always has your back. If you do not go along with the herd, they will conspire against you in elections, where — as is the norm in Leftist visions of democracy — the dead will rise and vote alongside illegal immigrants, felons, cartoon characters and fake Twitter accounts.
As the West slowly awakens to the fact that it has been taken over by a regime as ruthless and incompetent as the USSR, the first task upon us is to hold our elites to account for their reality-denying ideological message and the further Sovietization that it holds in store for us.
Wednesday, October 19th, 2016
The West is suffering a Muslim invasion. In the debate, people try and uncover the barbaric nature of Islam, and to convince other westerners of it. Oftentimes it is brought to our attention that Muslims still live in medieval times with laws and culture that are incompatible with those of the West.
Rather than refute that, I would like to bring up something else. Namely the prevailing mental retardation with people swallowing past ideas and becoming followers; and take the opportunity to point out that it would seem a little silly to make comparisons between the retarded as if one retard is more intelligent than the other.
Although we may borrow from the minds of dead people it is no good to leave them to do the thinking on the behalf of the living. It would serve human beings better to verify the truth on their own.
Doing so is a slow process towards maturation. Most people bypass this process, to become a follower because that has it’s advantages. They may become Christians over a cup of tea, but in this they have become insubstantial believers because they don’t know the things that Jesus spoke of. They repeat what the priests say, but do the priests really know anything?
The leftists live in the age of The Enlightenment,™ and Christians live with age-old concepts, and so it is with everyone else. Is it really that much better to be a mindless drone that serve Jesus, than say Mohammed or Marx? It probably isn’t, to the individual, although the culture would be radically different between them.
The intelligent population seek the truth for themselves because they know that that is what matters and what will yield the best results. If faced with politics or religion, it seek to verify or dismiss these things on its own, it does not concern itself with the opinion of people but rather seek to know the truth. That sort of person is very hesitant to become a follower of politics or religion.
If we can put the truth first, then we can learn what Muslims have or do not have to offer us. And we can speak honestly and say that we do not want their culture not because it is bad, but because we have our own, and any other culture will be alien to us and destroy what we have.
Tuesday, October 18th, 2016
In Trump We Trust
by Ann Coulter
Sentinel Books. 182 pages (2016)
The latest from Ann Coulter shows the writer at her fiery best with an urgent message: if Donald Trump is not elected, Democrats will use demographic warfare against the founding ethnic group of America, and there will never be another Republican president. Ever.
Those who have followed the rising movement that became the Alt Right over the last decade will recognize their talking points here. In the In Trump We Trust vision, America is a dispirited land ruined by Leftist policies and its demographic change, which has made its popular dare not to hope. The book tackles every objection raised to the Trump candidacy and points out that not only are his policies workable, but he has been in control since the beginning.
As Coulter sees it, Trump turned politics on its head through the radical idea that the issues that concern Republican voters should take priority over what the political consultants, pundits and insiders think. He zeroed in the fact that immigration is the biggest issue for most Republicans; they see a genocide in progress where they will be dispossessed of control over their nation and reduced to minority status, then destroyed with taxation.
Liberals want mass third world immigration because as soon as they have invincible Democratic majorities, utopia will arrive. Then they’re not going to return the GOP’ phone calls — just like in California.
The GOP had a different set of reasons for supporting mass immigration: the business community wants cheap labor. Not every member of the donor class derives a benefit from mass immigration, but no rich person is willing to become a hate figure by bankrolling the opposition. Republican officeholders ran the numbers and realized the electoral implications won’t be felt for a few years, and by then they’ll be retired. Après moi, le déluge. (166)
This sounds like something straight out of the Alt Right message on immigration in general. The existing parties are in cahoots because they are paid employees of a system that wants to cannibalize the US and EU, and then its members will move on to a new country to parasitize. In Trump We Trust is a call to war that shows Coulter at her vitriolic best.
Much like her other book, the latest from Coulter is structured carefully. She bashes out her main argument in the first three chapters, then fleshes it out with extensive facts and quotations from the mainstream media throughout the latter part. Her specialty is digging up older statements from the media that contradict their current narrative.
The short form of her argument is that America is in the grips of certain pretenses advanced by the Left in the 1960s and 1990s that made it impossible to discuss important issues, which has incensed voters because no one in the Democrat or Republican parties will even discuss these issues.
As a result, they are energized by Donald Trump. Where previously they thought that they had no options to overthrow this parasitic Soviet-style leadership caste which is commonly called “the Cathedral,” they now have a candidate who has won by ignoring the guilt, political correctness and control gambits of the faux elites. Trump wins because he threw out the accepted playbook and tossed the rules, because he recognized that these rules were made to smash the interests of the historical American people.
In doing so, following on the tone of her groundbreaking 2009 column “At The End Of The Day, Diversity Has Jumped The Shark,” Coulter hammers home the points that Nationalists have made for several centuries now: immigration is abolition of the founding population, and will result in a third-world wasteland.
There’s no question but that the country is heading toward becoming Brazil. One doesn’t have to agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn’t make anything anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we’re importing a huge peasant class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor for the rich.
Washington think tanks churned out papers claiming that dumping millions of poor people on the country is “good for the economy.” How can that possibly be good for the people who already live here? No, it’s obviously a net loss for the people already here…They can see their taxes going up, they notice when they don’t hear a word of English being spoken in their neighborhoods, they can see that traditional celebrations are being canceled for not being “inclusive,” and they know their schools don’t have money for programs because it’s all going to English-as-a-second-language classes.
The donor class doesn’t care. The rich are like locusts: once they’ve picked America dry, they’ll move on to the next country. (28-29)
Expect this level of vitriol and clarity to be frequent, as well as the time-honed Coulter formula of inserting absurdist humor every few paragraphs to make the reading process zip along. This book takes no prisoners, and in doing so from the mainstream Right, Coulter has lifted the Alt Right into not only the political dialogue, but the consciousness of everyday Americans.