Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The Diversity Formula

Diversity is a good thing in many ways, but it has its natural limits, as do practically all good things. I like the food comparison. One should have a diverse diet. It should include, meat, dairy, grains, fruits, vegetables, etc., depending on one's personal needs and tastes. But it shouldn't include rocks, methane, ground glass, plywood, or ant poison. That's too much diversity. And even those diverse foods that are good don't always go together well, though they're benign enough separately. Most of us don't like peanut butter mixed with cottage cheese, though we might enjoy both separately. And some things we might like a lot, like M&M's or fried eggs, but we seldom consider putting them on a pizza.

And when it comes to people, some are just plain undesirable, like murderers and rapists, and some just don't go together well, like Hindus and Muslims, Jews and Palestinians, Blacks and Whites. Do I make my point?

As Chateau Heartiste puts it:

Study: Diversity + Proximity = War (With Addendum On The Perceptive Genius Of CH)

by CH

May as well get this out of way early:

An April 2015 research paper concludes that the Heartiste formulation


is a fact, is true, is empirically sound, and is an accurate description of the way the world actually works, (instead of the way various open borders ‘toids insist the world works through the haze of their equalist acid trip).

The Nature of Conflict

This research establishes that the emergence, prevalence, recurrence, and severity of intrastate conflicts in the modern era reflect the long shadow of prehistory. Exploiting variations across national populations, it demonstrates that genetic diversity, as determined predominantly during the exodus of humans from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, has contributed significantly to the frequency, incidence, and onset of both overall and ethnic civil conflict over the last half-century, accounting for a large set of geographical and institutional correlates of conflict, as well as measures of economic development. Furthermore, the analysis establishes the significant contribution of genetic diversity to the intensity of social unrest and to the incidence of intragroup factional conflict. These findings arguably reflect the contribution of genetic diversity to the degree of fractionalization and polarization across ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups in the national population; the adverse influence of genetic diversity on interpersonal trust and cooperation; the contribution of genetic diversity to divergence in preferences for public goods and redistributive policies; and the potential impact of genetic diversity on economic inequality within a society. 

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Not sure just who those girls are. They don't look like the ones from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā), exactly, do they?

Monday, September 28, 2015

Trusting Trump

I've expressed my support for Trump's candidacy on this blog before, and some of the reactions I get surprise me. One of the most common is a variation on "I can't believe you trust Trump!" Well, of course I don't trust Trump. I've been voting since 1968, and I haven't trusted a single one of the politicians I've voted for. Trust isn't the point. The point is playing the odds, and voting for the guy who I think is most likely to do what I want done. And since Trump has made a big deal about immigration when the others were hoping to ignore it, I think it likely that he will be better than the others on this, the issue with the most importance for me.

As for all the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, I can certainly trust them not to do anything about immigration, because they've all made their intentions quite clear. They like the damn mess just the way it is just fine.

So, no, I don't trust Trump, but I'm at least rolling a pair of dice that I don't know is weighted. Best, most balanced thing on the subject of Trump I've read so far is from Fred Reed:

Thumpathumpthump, Here Come Trump
Pols Have Knickers in Knot

Dodos and Europeans

John Craig knocks another one out of the park:

The dodo bird

The dodo bird is an extinct species of bird that lived on the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean.

According to Wikipedia: 

The first recorded mention of the dodo was by Dutch sailors in 1598. In the following years, the bird was hunted by sailors, their domesticated animals, and invasive species introduced during that time. The last widely accepted sighting of a dodo was in 1662. 

The dodo bird has since become a metaphor for any being or thing which is dumb or has outlived its usefulness. But in fact the dodo was perfectly well adapted to its habitat until the arrival of the white man. It had lost its ability to fly because food was so plentiful on the island, and it had lost its fear because it had no natural enemies.

Reading about the way roughly half of Europe seems to be welcoming the recent invasion of African and Syrian immigrants with open arms, it's hard not to be reminded of the dodo bird.

It's not that Europeans are capable only of niceness. They once had it in them to fight, to conquer, and be dominant. The Vikings raped and plundered and pillaged all over northern Europe. Spain conquered a third of the world back in the 1500's. The Dutch took over South Africa and Indonesia and various other places, and were none to gentle about it. The British empire included North America, India, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Africa. The Belgians may have been the cruelest of all, judging by how they treated the Congolese.

The history of Europe is basically the history of various brutal conquering empires.

But one thing you can say for all of the lands that the Europeans conquered: they at least tried to resist, at first, though eventually they all had to bow to the superior technology and organization and military might of the white man.

Now the roles are reversed, and the Europeans are offering absolutely no resistance. They seem to have been brainwashed by the media into a strange, passive acquiescence to politically correct ideals that may result in the eventual extinction of their culture.

While the Europeans have been capable of greater, more successful aggression than the other races, they also seem to be more capable of pathological altruism. It's hard to think of another race which has ever simply welcomed its invaders like this.

It's as if Europe has been hypnotized, and is sleepwalking its way toward the same fate that befell the dodo bird.

What will it take to wake them up?

Sunday, September 27, 2015

The Founding Fathers on Immigration

It may come as a surprise to many of you youngsters out there that the Founders of the United States of America didn't advocate mass immigration from everywhere. No, that came later from people like Emma Lazarus [link], for whom the United States wasn't an actual country, but just a place where everybody on earth could come for however long they liked to soak up freebies and maybe later go found their own countries where immigrants in general would not be welcome,    !אַ שיינעם דאַנק / !

And now, everybody from the Bush and Clinton famiglie to various short-sighted libertarians (and with the notable exception of Donald Trump) are advocates of more and more immigration, especially the economically useless from the Third World, who will of course turn into economic powerhouses once the cross the border, by means of some Ellis-Island magic.

You'll note that when the immigrationist traitors call for all this immigration, they never quote the Founders directly, because when you dig into it, you'll find that they overwhelmingly wanted only British immigrants, and not just any of those.

Indeed, what they thought the country was for they stated pretty explicitly in the Preamble to the Constitution. I'll let the indispensable Steve Sailer explain all this at his site here (click to read):

Quibcag: Found the illustration on the net. Don't know where it originated.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Is the Pope for real?

Seriously, has Pope Francis really said all the flaky things that have been attributed to him, or is something lost in the translation?  Did he really say that Christians shouldn't own guns? Did he actually call illegal immigrants 'pilgrims'? Is there any leftist meme — other than abortion being an auto-da-fe — that he doesn't eagerly repeat? Anyhow, here's a nice graphic to pass around. Any chance of Benedict pulling a coup?

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Yearning to breathe (and collect entitlements) free!

Israel’s Collapse Imminent Due To Lack Of Diversity According To “Jews For Social Justice”

By Marc Steinsaltz Israeli Correspondent for Diversity Chronicle.

Under Israel’s extreme right-wing government, peaceful, beautiful, creative, and vibrant undocumented African migrants have been arrested and housed in concentration camps against their will. Thousands of intelligent, hard working, and law abiding Africans who only came to the state of Israel in search of a better life, and to make Israel an even stronger nation, have somehow been labelled a “threat” to Israel’s “Jewishness.” These people came with love in their hearts for Jews. For their naivety, they were segregated, numbered, locked up behind barbed wire, and then deported!

Undocumented migrants are often denied the right to work in Israel, to marry Israeli citizens, or even to use the state’s welfare programs. This is an obscenity and a violation of their most basic human rights! According to UN conventions on the rights of migrant peoples, Israel must grant full and complete legal equality to all undocumented migrants! This includes Arab migrants, Filipino guest workers, Somali pirates, and anyone else who resides or has resided in the past in Israel.

Fortunately, a group of progressive Israelis known as “Jews For Social Justice” are demanding that the state grant full equality to undocumented migrants. The group demands that Israel open its borders, so that peaceful people can enter the country freely. The spokesman for the group, Moshe Ficklestein, observed in a speech earlier today that “Jews are literally choking to death on their own Jewishness. They are suffocating from being Jewish in a Jewish state, they are dying inside from the despair, boredom, and emptiness of ethnic homogeneity. Israel is a sick society literally dying from a lack of diversity! Our nation is as boring, unexciting, and as tasteless as a piece of dry matzah, it needs African seasoning, and the more the better!”

Ficklestein’s speech was interrupted with boos and hollers from enraged Israeli racists and fanatical nationalists who insisted that Israel must survive as an exclusively “Jewish” state, whatever that means. I thought the idea of racial or ethnic states went out of fashion with the fall of the Third Reich. Alas, evidently not! The idea of a “pure” racial state lives on in Israel! Shocking, but true.

As Ficklestein continued speaking, he noted that “Jerusalem is devoid of a variety of authentic ethnic restaurants. At dance clubs lonely Jewish girls are forced to dance with Jewish males, instead of vibrant young African men. The African men are frankly, more exciting dance partners, as well as more interesting partners in every sense of the term! I speak from personal experience here. They possess superior virility and sexual stamina, so sadly many Jewish men resent them because of this! Those who oppose my policies are frankly jealous of African males! Sexual jealousy and uniformed petty bigotry drive all who oppose my policies! Feigned love for Israel or Jews is a mere smokescreen! These people are haters and racists. They are afraid of being cuckolded. Do not be fooled!”

Unfortunately, Ficklestein’s speech was once again rudely interrupted by a bearded Orthodox Jewish fanatic who shouted “You are worse than an Islamic terrorist. At least they would kill us all faster and with less pain!” Several Jewish protestors agreed, while another shouted “If you hate the Jewish state, why don’t you move to America where they buy that multi-cultural bullshit! Get out of Israel you self-hating Jew! Israel is a state for Jews, not for Africans, not for Arabs, only for Jews! We are the chosen of God and we have this land by divine right!”

Fortunately, as armed security stepped in, Ficklestein was able to continue speaking, adding that “Jewish men and women are marrying each other and having boring pale Jewish children. They are raising these boring Jewish children, all of similar skin hues, in houses and neighbourhoods that all look the same across Israel! It’s really very sad. Because of the close interrelatedness of Ashkenazi Jews, a preponderance of unique genetic diseases plague us! In order to help combat these problems we are organizing diversity orgies. At these events, in which young Jewish women get in free, and receive free drinks, African youths line up to have sex with them in succession. Progressive Jewish men get to sit and watch. This is how we should celebrity Diversity! These orgies are breaking down racial barriers and healing a world which for too long has been divided by race!”

Ficklestein was interrupted as a Molotov cocktail was thrown onto his stage. Fortunately he was unharmed, as he vowed to continue his speech, he noted that “African refugees are more Jewish than you or I will ever be! They chose to come to Israel. They chose to come to a Jewish state, therefore they are more authentically Jewish than anyone else! We were just born into it, it was only an accident of birth that we are Jewish! Only a racist, whose conception of Jewishness depends on things like blood or DNA would disagree! Being Jewish is a feeling, anyone who feels Jewish or comes to the state of Israel is a Jew period! Jews by choice are the most Jewish of all! If guest workers in Israel have a baby, I say that this baby is born a Jew!” Birthright Jewishness for all!

Ficklestein currently serves as a member of the city council, in the small Israeli city of Tirat Carmel. He has introduced legislation calling for Tirat Carmel to become a sanctuary city for African migrants. A scandal erupted after it was claimed by some Israeli racists that African gangs were allegedly targeting Jewish girls for sexual slavery. Ficklestein, without denying the incident, responded it must be understood that because of lower educational levels among African migrants, and different cultures, Israelis will have to learn to tolerate a certain amount of crime until the new immigrants are assimilated. Once everyone in Israel is part African and part Arab, there will be no more interracial crime, because all will be one race, united together as one people in peace because of our ethnic homogeneity! [Editor’s note: In discussing this last comment with Ficklestein, he seems to be genuinely unaware of the irony. ]

Responding to criticism of his controversial policies, Ficklestein stated that “Unfortunately Jews and Africans are not mixing fast enough. It may become necessary for us to pass laws requiring coupling between Jews and Africans. In one hundred years everyone in Israel will be mid-brown, and we will all be one people! It is the same with the Palestinian issue. Jewish women must offer themselves sexually to Palestinian Muslim men! Israel is becoming a multi-cultural society, and G-d willing, we will eventually achieve mid-brown homogeneity.

It is true that some people resent Jews for Social Justice because of our role in that process. However, if that process does not continue, Israel will not survive! If we do not embrace tolerance and diversity, Israel will collapse!” [Editor’s note: in later discussions with Mr Ficklestein over a beer, he declined to elaborate on exactly how retaining its present ethnic homogeneity would cause the collapse of Israel, simply repeating his statement that “the richness and beauty of Israel comes from its diverse immigrant groups, including undocumented Africans, Muslim Arabs, Filipinos, and Christians!” Note that Ficklestein’s statement is quite similar to Jewish anti-European activist Barbara Spectre’s notorious statement that without such a transformation, Europe “will not survive.”]

Indeed, Palestine has always been a multi-cultural and multi-religious society since ancient times. It is a land where Adonai, Asherah, El, Baal, Jesus and Allah have been worshipped by peoples of diverse races and backgrounds side by side in peace. It has been a home to heterosexuals, homosexuals, monotheists and polytheists alike. Palestine was once home to a vibrant diverse community, and it can be again.

Unfortunately, the Israeli parliament will begin hearings next week as right-wing extremists have submitted legislation banning Jews For Social Justice from operating in Israel. Moshe Ficklestein is already under investigation for misappropriation of government funds in a case that he claims is entirely politically motivated and fueled by hatred of his political positions and charitable work for undocumented African migrants.

Let us hope and pray that justice will be done for Jews For Social Justice! Let us hope that they can create a new vibrant and tolerant Israel, where undocumented African migrants, religious Palestinian Muslims, Filipino guest workers, and Christians enjoy full equality as Israelis! Everyone in Israel is Jewish and Israeli, whether he or she is there legally or not, and regardless of race, ethnicity or religion!
If the above perplexes you, go to the original here:

Illustration by Baloo http://baloocartoons.com/

John Craig on the Government as Next-Door Neighbor

John Craig puts things in perspective, as he so often does. This is from his blog here [link]. Go there and read it every day. I do.

If the government were a person

If a friend borrowed money from you, then, when you asked to be repaid, said that he didn't have the money because he'd given it away to some foreigners, would you be a little bit angry?

If you had to pay your employees (think: government workers) more than you get yourself, and found that those employees got health care plans, vacations, and pensions which far exceeded your own, all while working much less hard than you do, wouldn't you be a little miffed? Especially if those employees had, for all practical purposes, lifetime tenure?

If some people broke into your house to squat in an empty bedroom, and a neighbor then informed you that not only were those people who were there illegally not going to be evicted, but that you had to pay for their medical care and schooling as well, would that gall you?

If someone kept taking out new loans in your children's names, and continually got them deeper an deeper into debt, would you find that a little troublesome?

If some of your friends were targeted and killed by a couple of assassins, and someone explained what happened by telling you that it was just a peaceful demonstration about an internet video that had gotten out of control, when you found otherwise, would you ever believe anything that person told you again?

If a guy you know carelessly started a large bar fight, then recruited several neighborhood youths to finish the fight for him, and informed you that you were going to have to pay for part of it, would you be appalled?
Quibcag: The Girl with the Tiger Tattoo illustration is our old friend, Narusegawa Naru, of Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina), one of the first animes I watched. It holds up well. I've been looking for an excuse to use it for some time now.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Sudanese Genius takes clock apart, puts it in a briefcase-looking thingy, the world gushes with delight.

Okay, here's what happened in the real world. This kid got hold of a digital clock, took the casing off, put it into something that resembles a briefcase, took it to school with him, and gave ambiguous answers when asked what the thing was.

If a White kid had done this, he'd still be locked up for a bomb hoax, and Obama would be playing golf and not caring a damn.

But since the kid is a Muslim, and is Black, the world is rising up in indignation, which it does not do when White kids are suspended for chewing their pop-tarts into evil gun shapes.

Also, a great many self-styled "libertarians" are adding their voices to all this nonsense, filling their role as "useful idiots" for the liberals, sneering at the school authorities for reacting just about the only way they legally could without risking being fired for not doing their jobs.

In short, the brat and/or his father very carefully planned just how to get the reaction they got, though the reaction from the liberal and libertarian idiots out there must have exceeded their wildest dreams. People who think the liberal narrative is real on this must never have been to high school, or have very short memories.

This, from my good friend Stephen W. Browne:


by Stephen W. Browne

Oh the Humanity! Little 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, a persecuted genius who built a digital clock for a science project, was detained at his high school, rudely questioned and hauled off in handcuffs by those bigoted, white, Islamophobic Texans in Irving.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest weighed in.
“This episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even good-hearted people who have dedicated their lives to educating young people from doing the good work that they set out to do,” said Earnest.
President Obama has invited Ahmed to the White House and talks of displaying the clock there as an inspiration to young inventors everywhere.
Mark Zuckerberg declared the future belongs to young geniuses like Ahmed. Hillary Clinton tweeted her support.
On the right voices cried, hey wait a minute, that kid’s dad is a Muslim activist who has twice run for president of Sudan! He’s probably using his kid to do a dry run for a real terrorist attack and get us to relax security in our schools!
Has everybody gone nuts?
To begin with, the kid invented nothing, built nothing. He took apart a digital clock and repackaged it in a metal case.
He answered evasively when questioned. He did indeed ride to the police station in handcuffs, because that’s what police regs say you do when you get a ride to the police station. They were taken off, then put back on when his sister asked to take a pic of him in cuffs.
“The people at the school thought it might be a bomb, perhaps because it looks exactly like a ****ing bomb,” said comedian Bill Maher.
Does anybody in this day and age seriously think this was an innocent mistake?
Asked if they’d have done the same for a white kid (and why does that question always come up?) Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said they’d have followed the same procedures.
You know what? I believe him. Mostly because I’ve been through this with my own son in a somewhat less spectacular fashion. He used to like to make guns out of Legos you see.
Ahmed’s father, Mohamed El Hassan, rather than come down to pick up his son and giving him holy hell for raising a fuss, struck a tragic pose.
“Because my son’s name is Mohamed and because of Sept. 11 he got mistreated,” El Hassan said.
The North Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is “investigating.”
And of course we’re hearing the term “Islamophobia” bandied about. Evidently there is an epidemic of this, though curiously the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has not caught on to it yet.
Outside the extremes of left and right: “He’s a victim of rabid Islamophobia!” and “He’s a terrorist in training!” I could think of a couple-three explanations.
El Hassan is the leader of a small Sufi group in Texas. As it happens I’ve long been fascinated by these interesting people and know more than most about them. They are often persecuted as heretics in the lands of Islam and consequently have learned to express their teachings in parables and jokes.
Could it be this family is trying to teach us all a lesson about tolerance and not jumping to conclusions because of invidious stereotypes?
On the other hand, El Hassan came to this country and worked his way up from humble jobs to become a successful businessman. Could it be that he’s inspired by the Modern American Dream, “sue somebody and get rich”?
Or could it be that this kid is kind of a teenage jerk who knew very well how people would react if a kid named Mohamed brought something that looks a lot like a bomb to school? That he’s “woofing.”
Spiritual me wants to believe the first, but cynical me remembers that’s just the kind of thing I’d have gotten a kick out of when I was an idiot teen.
The original is here:
Quibcag: It is interesting that once in a blue moon, Bill Maher gets something exactly right, as in this quote. Unfortunately, he failed to understand the obvious fact that the kid and his dad planned the whole thing from beginning to end [link]. But the point he makes is a good one. The illustration is Isis-chan, who for some odd reason likes to eat muskmelon (or 'mushmelon,' as we used to say back in Indiana), and you can see more of her below:

Monday, September 21, 2015

Defending Western Civilization

In that last Republican debate, it seems that only two participants made good points: Trump, of course, maintained his anti-illegal position, something that seems unique to him among Presidential hopefuls this year. And Rand Paul pointed out that whenever we overthrow a secular Muslim strongman, he gets replaced by either chaos or Islamic fundamentalists or both. The rest were all about comparative trivialities.

Those two positions fit together rather well, so it's a pity that Paul and Trump seem to despise each other. When you create chaos in the Middle East, of course you cause people to want to leave there for all kinds of reasons, and immigrate to the West. So, the kind of fighting we're doing against the Islamic world is actually a fight against our own civilization. No matter how you look at it, millions of Muslims streaming into the West, whatever their motivation, is not good for Western Civilization. Just ask Charles Martel. Or John III Sobieski.

So I repeat the advice I've been giving for years. Don't meddle in the Middle East, and don't accept immigrants from the Middle East.
Quibcag:  The quote is from a commenter over at Chateau Heartiste. You can read about it at [link]. The illustration is from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā)

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Diversity and Justice

Great civilizations create great institutions. Sometimes they can borrow such institutions from each other, sometimes they can't. But these great institutions often don't work at all outside the civilizations in which they were developed. They especially don't work for less-than-civilized people.

This, from an anonymous reader:

A speedy trial, plus trying every crime by jury, plus competent free counsel only works well in societies where serious crime is relatively rare, such as the European societies that invented these things. Diversity gums up things badly, such as at the public defender's office in this town.

We have trial by plea bargaining ("If you confess I'll give you a sentence that may be lighter than a guilty man strictly deserves, if you go to trial I'll nail you with a sentence that is WAY more than a man who happens to be innocent deserves") because we have way more crimes than the Scandinavians who invented the whole jury of 12 thing in the Viking era.

That's partly diversity, and partly having too many laws, like the drug war.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Through the Looking Glass and into the Alarm Clock

The original video with viewer comments is here:

This seems to be an all-around hoax to give the Social Justice Warriors something to whine about. Now go read Steve Sailer's piece on it here:

Illustration by Tregenza.

Edward Longshanks just wanted to make a better life for himself and his family.

A meme for those oxymoronic open-borders libertarians to comtemplate. From Ron Ulysses Swanson. Click to enlarge.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Immigration and Libertarianism in Old Blighty

Libertarianism in America has been through a lot over the years, but now seems to have been pretty much co-opted by the left. That is to say, the libertarian mainstream here is dedicated to furthering the political correctness/cultural Marxism of the left at the expense of genuine libertarian principles. You can see it in the pronouncements of prominent libertarians on such subjects as religion, homosexual marriage, race, and law and order. I say 'prominent' because there remains a group of libertarians uncontaminated by the left. Unfortunately, we have to use terms like 'libertarian nationalist' and others so as not to get ourselves confused in the public mind with flat-out leftist bozos like Bill Maher who like to call themselves libertarians, as well as with the people running most libertarian institutions these days, who aren't much better.

And at the top of the leftist blather dominating this pseudo-libertarian thinking is immigration. Now, this isn't just a libertarian quirk. Liberals, of course, are advocates of moving the whole damn third world here for their own reasons, as are the vast majority of the neocons. Listen to Jeb Bush's nonsense on the subject for awhile if you don't believe that.  Indeed, the hostility the Republican establishment has towards Donald Trump has very little to do with taxes or abortion, but a great deal to do with his heresy on the immigration issue.

As I've said in various ways before, libertarianism is a product of Western Civilization, and it cannot survive the onslaught of an invasion of what will turn out to be hundreds of millions of third worlders, virtually none of which understand what individual liberty is, or would approve of it if they did understand it.

For some reason, our brother libertarians in the UK seem to lack this self-destructive quirk. Is it because they haven't been bombarded all their lives with tear-jerking Ellis Island narratives? Is it because they've never been taught that they're a 'proposition nation'? Is it because so many of the immigrants they're getting are more obviously hostile and dangerous to them and their culture than the ones we're getting are? Or is it because Brits have a better understanding of history, having a longer one, so to speak, than we do?

Whatever they reason, they're worth listening to. This, from http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/09/13/a-propertarian-speaks-on-the-immigration-crisis/

A propertarian speaks on the immigration crisis

by John Kersey
This speech was given to the Annual Dinner of the Traditional Britain Group at the Royal Over-Seas League, London, on 12 September.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting me to address you tonight. I am going to address a few words on the current immigration crisis.
Let me begin with some considerations of principle. Freedom and civilisation are based upon a simple premise: that land should be privately owned. If we build a society based on the private ownership of land then there is no limit to our endeavour. For centuries, this was the foundation of the West; land was owned and managed by landowners who had a direct interest in its prosperity and an equally direct interest in the welfare of those who worked that land. If we seek the roots of the England we know and love, we find it most clearly in the private ownership of land.
In our time, this freedom has been challenged. Under socialism, and regrettably under governments that call themselves conservative, we have seen measures that have been designed to break the link between landowner and land, and instead to introduce a very different concept. This is the idea that sovereignty consists not in land but in the person. If the person is sovereign, then we will build a very different kind of society; indeed, we are unlikely to build a society at all, because individualism will cause that society to atomize into multiple and ever-changing identity groups.
Here, then, is the root of the immigration crisis. If we say that land is sovereign, then it follows that someone must exercise control over it. There are still substantial private landowners in Britain today, especially so in Scotland. But for our purposes, we should see land as it really is. There is no terra nullis in Britain today. Even that which is owned privately is subordinate to the Crown, and the Crown is effectively a surrogate for the people in its ownership and management of that land which is deemed to be held in common by the nation. I am not talking here of those private estates, such as the Duchy of Cornwall, which belong to the Crown, but instead of the vast mass of common land that we encounter every day of our lives and that is subject to the management of those who are, ultimately, servants of the Crown, whether as politicians, civil servants or local council workers. This is our land, and we are right to care about what happens to it.
This, then, is why as a propertarian, I find the immigration crisis so vexed by unclear thought. Land belongs to someone. If land belongs to the Crown, the Crown has a duty to manage that land in the best interests of the people of Britain, because it is on behalf of the people of Britain that the Crown holds that land in the first place. And that duty cannot be construed otherwise than to the people of Britain as they stand now. It cannot be a duty to foreigners or their governments, for how could that be in our national interest? Therefore we are faced with the prospect that the Crown and its servants believe that in permitting mass immigration to this country, they are actually acting in the best interests of the people of Britain. I believe they are quite wrong in this.
Let us now look more closely at what is going on at the moment. I believe that Janice Atkinson MEP has summed the situation up very well. Here is what she had to say,
“Let’s be clear about another thing: despite what the human rights industry and the massed ranks of taxpayer-funded charities and lobby-groups repeat, this is not a refugee crisis but a massive crisis of illegal immigration which must be resisted for what it is. A man who leaves Syria may be a refugee at the start of the journey. When he is illegally living in Calais and illegally attempting to enter Britain, he is an economic migrant and an illegal immigrant. The humanitarian consequences of the Syrian crisis are for the countries of the Middle East to manage. Not for Britain, not for France, not for Austria, not for Italy, not for the Netherlands, not for Poland, not for Romania. That cannot be said too often. Oil-rich, cash-rich petro-monarchies of the region must act. They claim to be our allies. Instead, some fund Islamic terrorism and allow hundreds of thousands to come to our countries against the wishes of our people.”
It seems to me that we have, since at least 1997, suffered a concerted political attack on our immigration system. The driving force behind that attack seems to be the belief that the person is sovereign; that anyone who wishes should be able to come to Britain regardless of the skills or abilities they would bring to our country or their cultural compatibility with it, and that the settled population of these islands should simply put up with it. We do not need to look far to find the cause of this. The Labour Party saw that immigrants and their descendants were among their core supporters. They believed that the more they opened our doors to immigrants the more they would create a Labour client state and effectively pack Britain with Labour voters. Others, influenced by the ideology of multiculturalism, saw mass immigration in the same way as theorists such as the Frankfurt School as a means of destabilising opposition to socialism and making the lot of conservatives a miserable one. In an interview in 2013, Lord Mandelson said “In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.”
Now we are seeing the distinction between legal and illegal immigration further weakened. Having encouraged mass immigration, we cannot then profess ourselves surprised when people from countries where life chances are extremely poor decide that any chance to get across our borders is worth taking. We are told that if we send millions of pounds in international aid, and indeed if we intervene militarily in foreign wars, that we will help these people stay where they are and stabilise their countries. Don’t believe it. Those who are coming to Europe believe that the standard of living that their countries provide is inadequate by comparison with that of the West. They do not want mere safety, which is why they do not want to stay in Hungary. Rather, they see the prosperity that Britain and Germany represent, and they want to experience it for themselves.
What is happening to our immigration system is an erosion of its natural boundaries. Time after time, the Prime Minister assures us that we will get an immigration system that is tougher. When he says tougher, what he actually means is fairer; that is to say, fairer both to the immigrants and to those who are already here. And yet the changes made do not have the effect that is claimed for them, nor do they succeed in substantially lowering the numbers who enter Britain each year. I hear constant statistic-based arguments from both sides about whether immigration is economically beneficial. I do not believe that it is, because it artificially distorts our labour market. I certainly do not believe it is in anyone’s interest that we should have a class of super-rich international jet-setters employing an underclass of disenfranchised immigrants to do menial work that the existing population of this country is supposedly unwilling to do. But this is what happens when an aristocracy of land is replaced by an aristocracy of money. We should not think that Tony Blair and his colleagues are motivated by noblesse oblige or care for our society and our environment. Their motivation seems, by contrast, to speak all too plainly of short-term, materialistic, self-interested greed and tribalism in favour of their family and friends. Their interest is not so much in New Labour as in cheap labour. These are not the values we should have at the heart of our society and they are not values that have had any significant place in the Britain of the past.
But it is not the economic arguments that have the greatest impact on me, it is the cultural arguments. These are arguments that go largely unheard in the House of Commons. It is left to Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, to voice them. He says “Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? There is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders.”His is not the only country to say that it cannot accept more Muslim migrants.
Is it not sobering that our own Prime Minister cannot mount a robust defence of the Christian heritage of our country in this way? It must be admitted that were he to do so, he would not get a lot of support from the Church of England. But this is the crux of the matter. We cannot allow mass immigration by people, whatever their personal merits and humanitarian need, whose cultural commitment is to values which are profoundly different from our own, without a heavy price being paid. And the countries where those values are naturally at home – Saudi Arabia chief among them – are noticeable by their reluctance to assist in the present crisis, even though it is they who should be bearing the heaviest burden. As those rich Arab countries look at Europe, they must be reminding themselves of the old saying, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.
A further argument which is extremely important is that we must learn the lessons of the past when it comes to immigration. The character of Britain depends in large part on the fact that our country is relatively underpopulated. Even our cities, which have always been cosmopolitan in nature, are having to bear a burden that is far greater than they were designed for. The NHS, the transport system and local services cannot be stretched beyond their limit without breaking. We are seeing property prices being inflated by an artificial scarcity, and new housing being built not only on brownfield sites but often as infill development on greenfield sites as well.
As our towns and cities become more packed, our quality of life suffers. It also suffers from the failure to assimilate migrants by enforcing our cultural values. It should be the norm that the English language is spoken on our streets, for example, and it should also be used in commerce, so that we do not have shop frontages entirely in a foreign language. Immigrants should learn English, and we should monitor their progress until they can communicate clearly in the language. We should have the courage to ban the burka and thereby defend the rights and freedoms of women which were hard-fought in this country. We must ensure that immigrants do not jump the queue for council housing or other public services at the expense of our settled population, but that they wait their turn like everyone else. We should also ensure that British values are taught in our schools and that Muslim propaganda has no place there. One aspect of this that I came across recently is that music – singing or playing an instrument – is regarded as haram, or forbidden, by most Muslims. We should be clear that every child should be allowed the experience of singing and the opportunity to learn a musical instrument during their time at school, regardless of their religious beliefs. And we should not hesitate to deport from this country those who use our hospitality to argue against Western values and to encourage terrorism and armed jihad. That has no place whatsoever in this country. If people want to go to Syria to fight with ISIS, they should not be allowed back and should be treated as undesirable aliens. As our recent experience has shown, it is very easy for the Home Office to keep people out of this country.
In short, where our cultural values and those of foreign migrants clash, ours should prevail and our national systems should enforce them. We cannot be equivocal about this. If we give in to cultural relativism, we are effectively signing our death warrant as a people and as a culture. We need to understand that the support of our culture requires its positive reinforcement at every level. It cannot simply be absorbed by osmosis, and certainly not if we allow ghettoes to form.
I do not want to deny or diminish the human cost of immigration from the migrants’ point of view. We would not be human if we were not moved by the plight of dead children or desperate people. Those scenes rightly evoke an emotional response in us. But political policy cannot be subject to emotion; it must be made with a cool head and in a climate of calm and reasoned judgement. The decisions we make about immigration, whatever they may be, will always have a cost to pay. My belief, though, is that the balance of those decisions must always be firmly towards the settled population of this country, who look to their government to defend their interests. We cannot accept everyone who wants to come here, and if we do, we will have acted to destroy this country, not enrich it. We must have the maturity and the courage to say, as Hungary has said, that there are good reasons to say no.
Quibcag: I don't know who the menial maid is, but I got her from here: http://anime.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/1378302/

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

The Ethnicity-Liberty Connection

The thing about liberty is that it's not just floating around in space. The whole concept of personal freedom is a social construct based on a sheaf of cultural values. It is not universal in any way at all. It doesn't exist in the abstract any more than does the Mona Lisa or Crime and Punishment or Tschaikowski's Fifth. Or this blog. It's an artifact of the human mind.

Consequently, you can't expect people from diverse cultures to think alike on the subject at all, any more than they would on other subjects, from religion to philosophy to music to literature.

And if you're a advocate of personal liberty, this is very important for you to understand. It isn't a virus that spreads virulently  by contact. It is, on the contrary, a rather delicate organism that has to be cultivated carefully if it is to survive at all, let alone spread.

There are a lot of explanations for the development of personal liberty in the Western World, the most common being a combination of ancient Greek thinking, the theology of the Bible, and years of the development of separation of church and state, the concept of self rule, etc. But it's not disputed by any authority that personal liberty came into existence in the West and nowhere else. And that, insofar as other peoples may have absorbed some elements of the concept, they got it from the West, and not from any organic development of their own cultural elements. The Hateful Heretic elaborates on this at The Right Stuff [link]:

Liberty and Ethnicity