Showing posts with label illegal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

The Cart Before The Horse, Once Again

I've blogged before about Prohippine Libertarianism HERE, and it's time to bring it up again. While Obama is doing his best to relocate all of Central America into the small towns of the United States, in order to create an even bigger permanent class of government dependents and ensure his "fundamental transformation of America," some of us are raising hell about it, most Democrats are following the herd in their sheeplike fashion, Republicans are either in the same herd or twisting themselves into ideological pretzels trying to avoid being called "racists," and libertarians, for the most part, are being Leninist "useful idiots," by applauding the invasion for reasons of "ideological purity." I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

Right now, on a libertarian forum, the usual maddening reactions to all this are taking place. First up was the implication that any opposition to all this is "racism," which is a useless word to anybody but propagandists, and it's very useful to them indeed. Then "xenophobia" was mentioned, which sounds like a mental disease, but is just a word for the tendency we all have to lock our doors at night.

You'll notice that, so far, all these arguments are the exact same arguments, if you can call them that, which you constantly hear from liberals. Libertarianism is not a subdivision of liberalism, and politically correct blather has no place in it.

Then, in a more libertarian-thinking fashion, somebody pointed out that the drug war is a big cause of all this, and that if that were ended, the immigration crisis would end. I don't think that's the whole cause, but it's a big one, and has the virtue of being logical, instead of emotional. But then, this statement:

"Anyone willing to walk that far for a welfare check, is exactly the kind of go getters, dreamers, and economic new blood our country needs. I would hire people like that in a heart beat, any entrepreneur with half a brain would."

No. First off, if you're going to that much trouble to get welfare, you're certainly not going to give it up for a stupid job, are you? And also, doesn't this sound interestingly similar to the liberal/neocon rhetoric about how many immigrants do startups, etc., and are somehow better than the native born? This is what we get from the immigration-enthusiast media all the time, as they interview all the "dreamers" who were brought here as children, and have performed miraculously in academia and the military. But they carefully don't interview, or even allude to, members of M-13 or other violent criminals. Indeed, it's media policy to leave out, as "irrelevant," the immigration status of thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., leaving us to think of immigrants, legal or illegal, as some sort of magnificent improvement, automatically, to our demography. A look at the actual statistics, if you can find them, leads to a quite different conclusion. For every "dreamer," you get a brood of Tsarnaevs.

Then somebody said that he disagrees that they're here for welfare checks, and that they don't get welfare checks or even driver's licenses, the poor things. Pure drivel, again just duckspeaking all the liberal talking points. Illegals get all kinds of freebies, from flat-out welfare checks granted by welfare workers whose incentive is to increase the number of people on welfare, thereby ensuring their jobs and self-importance, to free education, to aid given to illegals who have children born here, or children they say were born here. The liberals who run the welfare system have zero incentive to deny freebies to anybody, including immigrants, legal and otherwise.

But another libertarian, my kind of libertarian, Lea Nicole, whose page is HERE,  knocked all this nonsense into a cocked hat thus:

"Borders being open is just an obvious failure of an idea. We are already overpopulated and everyone wants to be in the land of America . How the hell are we gonna support everyone... since our goal in our current government is to support everyone?"

Any purist libertarians want to refute that — with something other than a call for ideological purity, that is?
Quibcag: This is illustrated by Masumi Sera, of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), because she's a smart girl, and would very likely say something smart like this. That, and she's a bona fide cutie-pie.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Pathological Empathy

Tegucigalpa, Honduras- “A girl (11 years-old) resisted being robbed of $5. She was clubbed over the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her body in a ravine…”

I ran across this little gem on a forum, and of course it evoked from most of the participants exactly what it was supposed to evoke — intense empathy and an unquestioning advocacy for opening the
borders so this sort of thing will never happen again. I wrote on the forum:

That sort of suggests that maybe we don't need to import Hondurans, hm?

And someone rapidly replied:

No, it suggests we need to welcome these refuges, fer christ's sake.

And someone else wrote:

Bring in the kids and any parent - they're all political refugees now. 

Absolutely no thought given to the fact that open borders will be open to the murderers as well as to their prospective victims. These killers of course are not orcs or demons, but simply other Hondurans, who are of course related to other 11-year-old girls, and who will enter as their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, etc., because it would be immoral to break up families.

Liberals seem to think that when people from a violent culture cross the US border, a transformation of some kind takes place and they stop being violent people, because violence in Honduras or Uganda or wherever is completely caused by Americans. White Americans.

All of this is of course egregiously paternalistic. Third-Worlders have no agency, and everything they do is caused by us. The next step after accepting all the "refugees" will, of course, be to bomb Honduras or invade it, or send billions of dollars there in foreign aid. Better yet, follow the neocon/liberal paradigm and do all of that!  Invade, bomb, pour money in, and invite millions of immigrants.  As Steve Sailer asks, what could possibly go wrong?

Speaking of Steve Sailer, Steve is interested in this idea that illegal Hispanic immigrants will do wonderful things, you know, cure cancer and invent wonderful machines, so they should be granted amnesty, right? So far they've found one such immigrant. Sort of.  Read about this Dream Act Dreamboat HERE.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Maxine's Bird Feeder

This is going around the net. A classic. Pass it on.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Camp of the Santos

On my recent post about How Israel Can Think Itself Out Of Existence, commenter
JaredMithrandir wrote:

Israel and America are different Countries in their very premise. America was always meant to be a melting Pot of various different peoples, while Israel was created to give one globally oppressed minority a Homeland, a safe haven.

With all respect, he's wrong. Originally, our country was meant to be nothing of the kind. It was a part of the British Empire that decided to secede and go off on its own. While it welcomed immigrants, it was tacitly assumed that almost all such immigrants would be British, and therefore immigrants in the most limited sense, because they were considered cousins who were, so to speak, choosing to live in this version of Britain. The Preamble to the Constitution states that its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," not to every rag, tag, and bobtail. The "melting pot" was originally used to refer to Brits and other Northwest Europeans who came here and "melted" into Americans. It wasn't until much later when Emma Lazarus made the whole concept ridiculous by calling for immigrants from everywhere.  An attempt to halt this trend was the 1924 Immigration Act, which lasted until Lyndon Johnson made the ridiculous concept official by giving special advantages to immigrants from anywhere except Northwestern Europe.

And now the ridiculous version is the official one, and we long ago gave up the concept of "assimilation" in favor of multiculturalism. To hell with European immigrants who actually will assimilate and become Americans in the real sense. What the establishment wants is "huddled masses" who will provide cheap labor and become dependent on the government for everything, and vote like mad for bigger, more intrusive government in every respect.

But I begin to rave. I refer you to the cooler head and sharp pen of Steve Sailer, who writes in Takimag:

A Righteous Invasion

The current surge of Central American children and mothers across the border has made a travesty of the schmaltzy arguments long employed to rationalize the government’s winking at illegal immigration.

George W. Bush famously assured us that we shouldn’t worry about illegal aliens because “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River [sic].” Yet we are now witnessing the extreme cynicism of Central Americans dispatching their unaccompanied children and nursing mothers across the drug war zone of northern Mexico to exploit the talk of amnesty among American leaders.

Similarly, we’ve been told that illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t do, but what job are these children going to do? Chimney sweep?

A Central American mother, baby in one arm, told a TV news crew in Murietta, CA—where for the first time in years American citizens have dared to take a stand against the exploitation of themselves—that women like her were flocking across the border because “We can’t have children in our country.” But how much work that Americans just won’t do are they going to do here while having more babies?

Having overpopulated their own countries, they come here to overpopulate ours. During periods of high immigration, such as during amnesties, the birthrate among foreign-born Hispanics shoots upward. For example, the big amnesty of the late 1980s drove up the total fertility rate for foreign-born Latinas in California from 3.2 babies per lifetime to 4.4, which then choked the public schools in the Golden State around the turn of the century. Obama’s announcement last week of plans for a massive de facto administrative amnesty would likely have a similar effect.

Eventually, the newcomers realize that raising children in America to middle-class standards of parental investment is enormously more expensive than they had foreseen—a new study suggests that to be comfortable a family of four needs an annual income of $130,000—and they can’t afford the ones they’ve already had. So fertility rates finally start to drop. But the efforts of Democrats to lure in future voters assure us that we won’t go long before a new crop of illegal aliens arrives to procreate with abandon.

A commenter of mine, who for the moment calls himself Sky Islander, notes some other opportunistic paradoxes in the conventional wisdom:

We need them because they make us richer, and we need them because we are too rich and must share with the poor immigrants.

They are so hardworking and will stoically work to contribute to American society. They are so helpless and weak that we must work harder to take care of them.

Likewise, we have to let them in because we will no doubt discriminate against them viciously. Therefore we must discriminate in favor of the newcomers by giving them ethnic preferences over ourselves.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: The girls of Nichijou (日常) who live in a country with a sane immigration policy (Japan) are understandably outraged about the idiocy of the American policy. Two of them, anyway. The third is the more thoughtful type.
P. S. Over there on the right you can find "Remember Murrieta" merchandise for sale.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

A. X. Perez on Murrieta

As is so often the case, A. X. Perez goes right to the heart of the matter, thinking instead of feeling (see previous post HERE), and talking about things the way they are, not the way the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) wants us to think they are.

There's a practice I've heard about in the Middle East, where you move your tanks into an area with hostages strapped to them, so that your victims won't shoot at your tanks. This is sort of what's happening here. The politicians are the enemy, bent on making lots of money and wrecking the United States, and they are using these illegal immigrants as hostages, hoping that American rage will be directed at the puppets rather than at the puppeteers.

A. X. is right about where Ground Zero is. That's where Obama is letting everybody in, Texas, and once they're in, he can caterwaul that his hands are tied, and we have to go through all kinds of legal rigamarole to get them out again. But his job is to keep them out in the first place, and he is manifestly not doing his job. And of course he has no intention of getting them out again. They are destined to be permanent welfare recipients and Democratic voters.

But Murrieta is where the opposition is forming, and we can't ignore that, either. The latest from Nicholas Stix, Uncensored:

An American Tiananmen Square? All American Patriots’Eyes Turn to Murrieta, as Dictator Obama Seeks to Crush Opposition; Ann Coulter Tweets Series of SOS Signals on Murrieta Patriots’ Behalf
Ann Coulter began furiously tweeting on behalf of the besieged citizens of Murrieta at around 5:18 p.m. today. I have copied and pasted all of her Murrieta tweets, and reversed their order, so that they are now in chronological order.

Brave citizens of Murrieta are doing more than Congressional GOPS -




Is Murrieta the only town with self respect?

From a city that's NOT getting illegals dumped on it, NYT calls Murrieta "the place that turned away the immigrants." Effe Vous, NYT

How about sending the buses of illegals to NYT headquarters, 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018? - 

Then the NYT could start reporting on the effects of scabies and tuberculosis.

GO MURRIETA! "federal agents accompanying the bus will have riot gear and shields, in order to push back the crowd" -

John Henry in strong position 2 B president of new country: Admin flooding small town America 2 force immig reform -"
(Read the rest HERE.)

Quibcag: Illustration is Suzuki Sonoko of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン)

Friday, July 4, 2014

Lollipops and Lunkheads

Sheila Jackson Lee, who famously doesn't know the difference between Mars and the Moon, is now demonstrating that she doesn't know the difference between the United States and other countries. She also seems to think that her Black constituents who already have a horrible unemployment rate would benefit from competition by hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens willing to work real cheap. It's almost like she's working for fat-cat capitalists who want to drive down their labor costs and make more profit.

Look at it this way. If I were a big-shot business owner who needed a lot of unskilled labor, and slavery being frowned upon, I'd love to have millions of peons available to work for me for nothing. But if I were a young Black kid who is having a hard time finding any kind of a job, let alone one that pays decent wages, I might not want those millions pouring over the border. And I'd want "Black leaders" to understand that and oppose mass immigration. Why don't they? Could it be that they don't really care about the fate of American Blacks, but instead want to keep them dependent on the government, and dependent on the shakedown methods of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons and Sheila Jackson Lees and Barack Obamas and Eric Holders? Could it be?

Anyhow, here's Sheila's latest stunt, from Breitbart:


Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) believes the border crisis is not a national security threat, despite gangsters having already been apprehended along the United States-Mexico border.

In fact, Jackson Lee waved a bag of lollipops during a Thursday House Homeland Security Field Hearing in McAllen, Texas, and said she took bags of such lollipops to the illegal immigrant children in detention centers during recent visits. 
"This is not a national security crisis," Jackson Lee emphasized, noting that she was not armed and did not fear for her life when visiting the children. Jackson Lee said Border Patrol agents claimed the children were some of the most "orderly" and "behaved" children they have encountered. 
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), however, said that the "first priority" of the federal government is to protect the American people, and he was "not convinced that we know enough about the children that are here" to believe they will do no harm.
Barletta stated that illegal immigrants are flooding across the border because of the Obama administration's non-enforcement of the country's immigration laws. He warned that if those seeking to do harm sneak across the border, "innocent Americans" will be the ones who "pay that price."
I found this story, BTW, at one of the many good links on the subject at  Matt is helping keep this story alive. Here are his other links:

Illustration: This is the adorable Himeko, from Sket Dance, スケット・ダンス
Update: Countenance has a special tribute to Sheila Jackson Lee on his blog HERE.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Sam Francis on Immigration

Over at the Unz Review, Ron Unz is performing yet another public service by archiving and making available a number of writings by the late, great Sam Francis. Francis coined the term "Anarcho-tyranny," which is the situation that obtains when the government ignores actual crime and criminals but instead carefully regulates and harasses law-abiding citizens.

And what better example of anarcho-tyranny can be found than our current practice of not deporting illegal aliens and giving them all sorts of freebies, while enforcing all sorts of anti-discrimination laws and anti-self-defense policies to make it impossible for Americans to protect themselves against the resultant tide of Third-World criminals?

For more on the concept of Anarcho-Tyranny, go HERE. For more Sam Francis columns on this and other subjects, go HERE.

Note that the column below is from ten years ago, but it's just as timely now, if not more so.

Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads
BY  • DECEMBER 30, 2004

In Europe, if not in the United States, some people are beginning to grasp that just maybe they made a mistake when they decided to welcome millions of immigrants over the last several decades.
The most recent European to get it is former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who has been making noises about the damage he and his colleagues have inflicted on their own societies.
Interviewed in a Hamburg newspaper last month, Mr. Schmidt confessed, “The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fitwith a democratic society” and that importing thousands of Turkishgastarbeiter, or foreign guest workers, into Germany over the last several decades was a bit of a boo-boo.
Quibcag: Again, not literally a quibcag, because it's too serious for a cute illustration. The actual illustration was found on the net, and is probably a much more accurate depiction of the refugee "children" that Obama and Pelosi and their ilk are welcoming to our country.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Remember Murrieta

Buy this bumper sticker HERE.

What is the meaning of Murrieta? Did Mayor Alan Long pull a Yeltsin-on-the-tank moment off? Let's hope so. You know, this is the first time actual working-class Americans went out in the streets and stopped the Government from pushing them around for a long time. I'm not counting Tea Party demonstrations, because they've all been uniformly polite, gentle, non-threatening, and completely ineffective. Oh, there have been plenty of street demonstrations, by Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's thugs, Occupy bums and aged hippies, and illegal aliens, and many of them have managed to cause the Government to do things they want or stop doing things they didn't like, but these Muriettans are honest-to-God Americans, wanting the Government to do the right things for America.

Other such incidents in history are called to mind. Tiananmen Square. The Boston Massacre. The Beer Hall Putch (I thought I'd beat the lefties to the punch by mentioning that). Waco. Murietta involved busses, thank God, and not tanks, like most of the others.

Will history record Murrieta as the beginning of the end for the established liberal/neocon order? Not because of what happened there, but because American seeing it happen might come to realize that feeble complaining on the net won't get the job done, as long as the left dominates the streets. Vox Day says this:

The new battle cry

Repatriation. Some of you may recall that I have predicted this for some time now:
Lynes's growing group of protestors in Murrieta has been organizing and plans to continue their protests until something is done. Their message is support Border Patrol, stop illegal immigration, enforce existing U.S. laws at the border, and repatriate those here in the U.S. illegally to their home countries.
They're focused on illegals now. But, just as we've seen in the larger immigration debate, the shift from illegal immigrants to all immigrants will take place soon. It's already happened in most European countries. Because it's not about the legality of the entry, it's about who is where.

This is a literal invasion of the country. And given the growing indications that the Executive Branch helped it take place, it is without question an impeachable offense.
Mayor Alan Long doesn't have a Wikipedia entry yet (get to work, Wikipedians!), but his website is HERE. He seems like a decent chap, and I'm eager to learn more about him. How about Alan Long for President? More info as I find stuff out.
Bumper sticker by Baloo. Buy it HERE. Baloo says he'll do t-shirts and caps, etc., if anybody wants one.

Immigrants and Veterans

I just wanted to pass on some useful links from the Drudge Report. Whew! The first one about the medical staff is pretty Orwellian, eh?

Oh, and did you hear about Murietta? Read this:

Their Hearts Were In the Right Place

Quibcag: I don't know where the original quote is from, but the illustration is from 

Friday, June 20, 2014

Cui Bono?

My knee-jerk answer to why the Government won't do anything about immigration is in two parts. (1) Business owners want plenty of cheap labor. Immigrants work cheap themselves, and drive everybody else's wages down.
(2) Immigrants mostly become dependent on Government handouts, so they contribute to making the Government ever more powerful and intrusive.

But there's more to it than that. There's also our misguided sense of benevolence toward everybody in the world. And the desire on the part of many of our leaders to destroy America in particular and Western Civilization in general. And there are various Marxist theories, which are oddly compatible with neoconservative and liberal and libertarian theories about the free flow of labor.

And, of course, there are reasons that are downright crooked. This from The Spearhead:

Obama’s Children’s Crusade: Probably a Smuggling Racket

by W.F. PRICE on JUNE 18, 2014

The sudden “Children’s Crusade” of Central American kids across our southern border has outraged Americans, but nobody seems to know who is behind it. Certainly, it’s partly Barack Obama’s fault for enticing the Central Americans with promises not to deport kids, but how could tens of thousands of children suddenly make it all the way across Mexico to show up in such large numbers on our border?

After reading an LA Times article on the invasion in which a woman at the border surrenders herself with her kids in the belief that single mothers will not be deported if they are apprehended [she's probably correct: I recently read a report written by a border patrol officer who reported that people who are not from bordering countries are simply issued summons to court and then released on their own recognizance -- he said they simply turn themselves in, get the summons, then disappear], I figured there must be some kind of organized effort to move these people.

I decided to do a little research, knowing that few people bother to go to the source even here in the US, so the number of Americans paying attention to Central American sources must be tiny. It turns out that the governments and media of Central American countries are very much complicit in the human trafficking, possibly assuming that remittances will be a source of income for their crime and poverty-infested little fiefdoms, and that in any event they can keep the cash flowing to their criminal cronies – and ultimately themselves – by subsidizing the smuggling industry.

It turns out that they are not only publishing advice and encouraging stories for would-be migrants, but also making a pretense of standing up for their countrymen who have illegally immigrated and – get this – they are even adjudicating civil suits between migrants and smugglers to impart an aura of legitimacy to the entire operation. El Salvador is probably the largest source of these Central American migrants and, incidentally, the source of the ruthless Mara Salvatrucha criminal gangsters who have murdered their way to prominence in a number of American cities. Could there be any doubt about a connection between the gangsters on our streets and the gangsters in office back home? These crooks running banana republics have been making a living off organized crime for decades.

After reading a few articles in “La Página,” an online El Salvador news outlet, all of which were highly supportive of illegal immigration to the US, I checked out the comments. It doesn’t seem that Salvadorans are proud of either their politicians or this recent border fiasco. One commenter suggested that it is a national humiliation, and that El Salvador will look “worse than Haiti,” asking “how did our government allow these embarrassments abroad?” Most were more concerned about the right to legally travel — not to emigrate. These are the type of people in El Salvador who actually bother to comment in newspapers; I suspect that the people showing up on the Texas border are from a somewhat less educated demographic. Could it possibly be, as many Americans suspect, that the government of El Salvador is deliberately trying to foist its poor and hapless off on the great big, dumb American milk cow? Something like that, but it’s actually even worse: they’re also shamelessly ripping off their own poor.

What’s going on here is that a number of people are taking smuggling fees from these would-be emigrants (reportedly $4,000 a head from point of origin), moving them through Mexico, then when they make it to the US border, Presto! The US picks up the tab from there. If the DHS prediction of 90,000 children smuggled to the US this year by these gangs is correct, that makes kid-smuggling alone a $360,000,000 per year industry, and probably more. What does it matter if they are eventually deported anyway? Somebody got rich off the scam. The only real losers here are the desperate fools who think they’ll be granted amnesty and the US taxpayers footing the bill for this fiasco.

And why am I so sure they won’t get amnesty? Because we can’t afford to give it to them. Illegals currently prop up the US social security system, having funded roughly ten percent of its reserve and paid in somewhere around $150 billion a year. Give them the right to benefits, and the entire thing would collapse very quickly. Without this illegal subsidy, social security would have started paying out less than it takes in by 2009. Obviously this scheme isn’t going to last forever, but if illegals got amnesty it would be over immediately and the fallout would be painful, to say the least.

However, another part of the scheme involves making sure that those who do sneak in are fit enough to work and pay into the system. If they can swim a river, cross some desert and evade ICE, they probably are. But if they are kids or single moms who just plop themselves down in front of the nearest border patrol officer and wait for air-conditioned accommodations, they’re far more likely to be an expense. So we Americans are really getting a raw deal with this latest wave.

As much as it’s tempting to say that this or that American political party or official is responsible for what’s going on or that it’s part of some deliberate plot, it’s starting to look like the entire thing is just another example of incompetence and poor judgment on the part of our “leaders.” They’ve been caught with their pants down on this one. They actually let themselves get tooled by a gang of Central American hustlers, and now they have no idea what to do about it.  W

Well how about this for an idea: find the head honcho in charge of each of these little countries, and tell him to put an end to it immediately or we’ll sink his yacht and drop a couple 500 pound bombs on his hilltop villa. Sounds rough, but what kind of a scumbag puts kids at the mercy of the criminal gangs who run both human and narcotics smuggling operations in Latin America? One I wouldn’t lose much sleep over if he happened to end up on the business end of an airstrike. This won’t happen in the current administration, of course, but another, better president would have done it.
Quibcag:  The girl who looks like she knows what she's talking about is from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā).

Friday, June 13, 2014

Obama: Come one, Come all — You will NOT be deported!

Some people say, "nothing happens by accident." Now, that's not true, some things do happen by accident. But some things that seem to, don't. And this outrageous pouring of Central American children over our border is most certainly not accidental. This from DailyKenn.


'We are not gullible enough to believe thousands came without aid and assistance'

An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.

“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.

“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”

Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.

More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.

A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: Ayumu Nishizawa (西沢 歩 Nishizawa Ayumu) from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!), is crying because she doesn't have enough to eat.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

A New Swap Idea

Here's one to pass around. Please share it. For some other thoughts on the Bergdahl triumph/fiasco, go to

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Sweden: Give Up And Die

Sorry, Swedes aren't like this any more.

First, thanks to Георги Георгиев for this link. Second, this is from an actual Swedish Newspaper, FriaTider Inrikes, it seems to be, and the original is HERE. I used Chrome's translation gadget to render the page into English for your convenience, so the translation is crude, as you can see. But it's clear enough to illustrate the flat-out suicidal mentality pervading Sweden these days. Our flakiest immigration enthusiasts haven't gone quite this far yet.

On top of all this, the bad news is that Sweden has made it illegal to criticize immigrants on the internet. The good news is that Swedes want to criticize them, so they're not all nuts. You can read about that HERE.

Requirement: Impound Swedes' houses and give them to immigrants

Published April 22, 2014 at 18:47
DOMESTIC. municipality must begin expropriating Swedes houses and condominiums and give them to immigrants. It requires the social worker Anders Wilhelmsson in Halmstad.

Like this article on Facebook

FULL LETTER: Click for larger image.
It is not enough to Swedes living in rental units are thrown out of their homes to make way for immigrants, according Wilhelmsson, who is a social worker in training and labor unit department for financial assistance.
In a letter to the municipal government, he writes that the municipality should now go a step further and use exproprieringsrätten to seize primarily single-family homes and condominiums owned by Swedes.The dwellings, the municipality must then give to refugees.
"The whole community should jointly set up to give refugees received housing and integration., It shall not unilaterally arrive at accommodation in rental units which in practice means that it is always the same group that sets up," the letter says.
Anders Wilhelmsson mean that something "radically" must be made to Halmstad municipality shall be capable of providing homes for the 450 new refugees, plus family immigrants, who now is on the way.
- Optional is the best, but it needed something radical. It says in the Constitution that expropriation is possible if clearly state for the common good and I think that housing and integration for these people is more important than taking land to build a road, says Wilhelmsson to Hallandsposten .

Wednesday, April 16, 2014


There are a lot of reasons to call for open borders and mass immigration to the United States. For Democrats, it's an attempt to get millions of new citizens who will become dependent on Government for everything, and who will consequently vote to keep them in power forever. For Republicans, it's a scheme to get those millions in so they can have ultra-cheap labor, because, again, the Government will pay for all their education, health care, etc. For liberals, it's a psychotic 'White guilt' thing. For all too many Christians, it's similar to the liberal thing, but has the added dimension of self-immolating martyrdom, taking the whole American people with them. (Aside to Christians: Christ martyred himself in our place. We're not supposed to. Christianity does not require suicide.) For some libertarians, it's because their ideology requires it (they think) and they're incapable of seeing the forest of reality for the trees of dogma. And for people who aren't White Americans, it's a plan to destroy White Americans, and it's working. This from Occidental Observer:

Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Racially Polarizing Politics, Despite MSM Efforts To Lull Whites

Kevin MacDonald

This article is also posted at

In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her] (an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.

The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definition of “precipice” is “the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation”—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the “de facto state of Israel,” a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.

It’s one thing to be demonized when you are the majority, but a far different thing when you are the minority.Advertisement

Needless to say, despite Craig-Richeson’s use of the word “precipice”, they do not view whites’ impending minority status as problematic. Indeed, they are eager to suggest ways to make Whites complacent about their impending status.

Jennifer Richeson

The theoretical framework for the Craig-Richeson paper emphasizes the general finding that people who feel threatened tend to adopt more conservative views. Studies show that whites adopt more conservative political views not only after terrorist events like 9/11, but also when they live closer to black Americans:

[A]n analysis of voter-registration data for Louisiana parishes revealed that the larger the percentage of Blacks in a parish, the greater the percentage of Whites who were registered as Republicans and the lower the percentage of Whites who were registered as Democrats.
But it’s still very easy for most Whites to avoid the costs of diversity and multiculturalism—”out of sight, out of mind.” The Craig-Richeson study reinforces this observation.

In their first experiment, subjects (all experiments used only whites) were told that California had become a “majority minority” state, while control subjects were told that there were now approximately as many Hispanics as blacks in the US. The experimental subjects reported they leaned more toward the Republican Party and toward more conservative opinions, and this effect was increased among subjects who lived closer to California.

In other words, people living in rural Nebraska, small town Montana or even Portland, Oregon are less worried about the disaster that is unfolding in California and many other parts of the US. Quite a few of these White subjects are in effect saying: “If it doesn’t impact me personally in my face-to-face world, I’m not going to worry about whites becoming a minority.”

The Craig-Richeson study illuminates the mechanics of why the Republican Party is rapidly becoming de facto the party of White America: American politics is simply becoming racialized as a result of identity politics. In the 2012 election, a majority of Whites of all social classes, both sexes, and all age groups voted Republican. Obama won only 36% of the votes of non-college whites—a group that traditionally voted Democrat when social class issues were paramount.

Of course, has been highlighting this logically possible path to GOP victory for years—calling it “The Sailer Strategy” after Steve Sailer, who has calculated that even if immigration not curtailed, the GOP could win presidential elections by increasing its share of the white vote well into mid-century.

For reasons that would bear analysis, GOP strategists ignore this possibility. But the Craig-Richeson study suggests that this GOP whitening trend will accelerate anyway, as it becomes increasingly difficult for whites to escape diversity. When the effects of the immigration tsunami are all around, it begins to dawn on people that their country is being taken away.

In the second experiment, subjects read a press release on the impending eclipse of America as a majority-white country—I hesitate to call America a “nation”—and were then asked about their sense of uncertainty about the future and whether they perceived the racial shift as a threat to the social status of whites. They were also asked about five issues that liberals and conservatives typically disagree about. Three directly related to race: increasing or decreasing the required time to be eligible for U.S. citizenship; increasing or decreasing foreign immigration to the United States; and support for Affirmative Action.

Subjects who read the press release were more likely to endorse conservative positions on all five issues, i.e., including questions directly related to race as well as those not related to race (health care reform and defense spending). They were also more likely to agree with the idea that increases in racial minorities’ status will reduce white Americans’ status.

Craig and Richeson view this last finding as particularly important. Whites confronted with their impending minority status are concerned that their social status will suffer, and this motivates their attraction to conservatism. Craig’s reaction is particularly blatant:

“These findings may be particularly relevant to media and government agencies who are currently reporting on these racial shifts, presumably without awareness of these potential threat effects,” Craig told Association for Psychological Science. “We’re working on ways to present information regarding these very real and important shifts in the country’s racial demographics that don’t engender these type of threat responses and, instead, promote positive relations among members of the majority and minority groups.”

Study Finds This Factor Leads People to Make More Conservative Choices, by Liz Klimas, The Blaze, April 9, 2014 (Emphasis added.)

You see, Craig, along with the rest of the academic Establishment, is entirely on board with eliminating America’s white majority through immigration policy. So the problem, as they see it, is not how to prevent the shifts, but how to make them palatable. How can the fears of white Americans be made to disappear so they won’t be drawn to the evil that is inherent in conservative political opinions and the Republican Party? How can White America be induced to embrace the harmonious multicultural future as America enters the golden age of diversity (and White America heads into the sunset)?

In their third experiment, Craig and Richeson laid the groundwork for the new propaganda. They added a condition where some subjects read a paragraph reassuring them that white social status “is unlikely to change” even after whites become a minority (the “assuaged threat condition”). They write:

The article in the assuaged-threat condition included the same information about the impending racial demographic shift as the article in the status-threat condition, but also indicated that “despite the shift in the demographic make-up, the relative societal status of different racial groups is likely to remain steady” and “White Americans are expected to continue to have higher average incomes and wealth compared to members of other racial groups.”

Results indicated that subjects who read this assuaging paragraph were no different from controls (Jamelle Bouie, writing in Slate, gets this wrong: Could America Become Mississippi? April 9, 2014). But those who read a passage about white Americans becoming a minority with no reassurance on their social status showed the same shifts to the right found in Experiment 2.

Voilà! Simply add a reassuring paragraph and the status-threat disappears! Frame the issue by reassuring whites that they will not suffer economically from becoming a minority, and they will be more likely to endorse Leftist nostrums approved by academic and MSM elites.

So here we obviously have a game plan for the MSM:
Continue to ignore the impending minority status of white Americans. (It’s remarkable that simply telling white subjects about this state of affairs makes them more conservative.)
If the topic of the impending white minority is discussed, frame it as having no negative consequences for whites’ social status. “Just relax. Everything is going to be okay. Your social status won’t be affected and, after all, the immigrants are just like you and they do jobs Americans won’t do. “

In contrast, these results show that a good strategy for the conservative media would be to highlight America’s impending white minority because whites would then be more likely to agree with conservative opinions—in a wide range of areas, including those not centrally related to race (e.g., healthcare and defense spending).

The downside for conservative media like FOX News: whites would then take also positions on immigration, Affirmative Action and other issues related to race that would be anathema to the neocons and to corporate America.

Drs. Craig and Richeson conclude:

One implication of the present work is that Whites may be increasingly likely and motivated to support conservative candidates and policies, in response to the changing racial demographics. These results suggest that presumptions of the decline of the Republican Party due to the very same changing racial demographics (e.g., Heavey, 2012; Shear, 2012; Wickham, 2012) may be premature. Future research is needed to examine the extent to which Whites’ status concerns, triggered by the changing racial demographics, may influence their political affiliations. Nevertheless, should White Americans (on average) respond to the changing demographics by becoming more politically conservative, the U.S. political landscape is likely to become increasingly racially polarized. [Emphases added]

Of course, the reality is that American racial and ethnic landscape is already well on the way to polarization. Already an average of 80% of non-Whites voted for Obama in the last election. Whites have been relatively less polarized, even though 60% voting Republicanin recent elections. But all the indications are that they are becoming more so. Not only are the majority of Whites of all social classes, both sexes, and all age groups voting Republican, as I mentioned above, but Republicans are increasing their share of the White vote by 1.5% in every presidential election cycle since 1992.[ “Does GOP Have to Pass Immigration Reform?, By Sean Trende,RealClearPolitics, June 25, 2013]

This is occurring despite a virtual blackout of discussion of the impending white minority in the MSM. Imagine how quickly polarization would increase if the racial shift were emphasized—and especially the downside for Whites. Imagine how hard it would be to sell the immigration amnesty/surge bill to white America if its acceleration of the racial shift were publicized.

The general lack of awareness also shows that there is a huge untapped source of conservative strength in the US: Accentuating the impending eclipse of White America would result in an upsurge of support for conservative positions on a wide range of issues.

The fact that the subjects in these experiments seemed unaware of these population shifts prior to the experiment is a telling testimony to the power of the MSM in shaping perceptions. Deciding what’s not fit to print is at least as important as what is fit to print.

So it’s no accident that the MSM is intensively policed to eliminate voices that conflict with the Leftist world view—people like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs. This is why Media Matters was so upset when CNN quoted Editor Peter Brimelow and James Edwards on immigration-related issues. [CNN Article Legitimizes "Pro-White" Commentators, by Todd Gregory, March 4, 2011]

And of course the Establishment Conservative media is no better. It’s interesting that when New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reviewed studies on the effects of liberal domination of the entertainment media, he reported that conservative talk radio and Fox News harp on “the fears that torment conservatives today—overweening regulators, welfare layabouts, the government seizing our guns” —anything but the fear of becoming a minority. [The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Is on Your Screen, August 19, 2012]

The political landscape would change rather quickly and dramatically if one above-ground, widely available, well-funded, MSM outlet told the truth.

But the data show that the landscape is changing anyway. Despite the MSM, Whites are waking up to the reality of their dispossession, even if the changes are slow. In the next 30 years, fewer and fewer whites will be able to escape the consequences of the immigration onslaught. The political landscape will continue to be more racially polarized. Whites will be looking for leadership that addresses their fears. Conservatism Inc. boilerplate about government regulation,welfare queens and even gun rights won’t hack it. Politicians like Jeb Bush, and the others who came to genuflect before Sheldon Adelson won’t cut it.

What will appeal to these whites—the great majority of whites—is explicit talk about white identity and white interests.

It will be a revolution.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here.
Quibcag: The demonic girl is Marii Buratei (蕪羅亭 魔梨威 Buratei Marii) of Joshiraku (じょしらく), who is also the winking girl in the sidebar. She's versatile.