“Illegals Turning Our Towns into Cesspools”

From here.

This is an article from a rightwing blog. All of the commenters are also rightwingers. But you don’t need to be a rightwinger to figure out that illegal aliens and their offspring ruin towns and cities. That is obvious to any Californian.

The problem with attacking illegals is that the Hispanics and the rest of the liberals always say, “You are not attacking illegals! You are really attacking Hispanics!”

This is a most interesting question that needs to be addressed head-on. Is it true that the illegals are only a problem in that they are Hispanics, and when we say illegals are no good, we are really saying that Hispanics are no good? It is quite an accusation, and I have to think deeply about whether or not it is true. The truth is that Hispanic legal immigrants have not caused a lot of problems in the US.

If you live in California, you can rapidly figure out that the problem is the illegals and not the legal Hispanics. Why is that? Because the illegals are particularly low quality immigrants. These are the peasants, the working class and the lumpen proletariat of Mexico. Say what you want about them, but they are basically pretty low quality people. Maybe they are just fine for Mexico; after all, folks like this form the backbone of Mexican society. Then again, Mexican society is pretty much of a mess, and it is these folks who have arguably created that mess. But it is not our responsibility to attack or fix Mexican society. That is an issue for the Mexicans themselves.

The problem is that the base of Mexican society simply does not provide high quality immigrants for the USA, a 1st World Country. The base of Mexico will simply tend to create Mexico in its dregs version, and that is exactly what they do.

Even if the 1st generation of illegals are pretty much hardworking folks, their children are another matter altogether. It is common knowledge here in California that the gangsters are the children of the illegals and not the illegals themselves. This is pretty much true, and I can attest to that firsthand as I got to know a number of gangbangers who live around me. In fact, for a while, a lot of them were hanging out over here.

Illegals and their descendants will tend to trash a town once they get to a majority. Going from a White town to a majority illegals + anchor babies town is, all other things aside, a downgrade. It is not as much of a downgrade as going from a White town to a ghetto Black town, but it is still a noticeable downgrade. I live in such a city now, and while it is relatively safe, there is a certain amount of petty theft, and I have had some items ripped off. The grand total over 5 years comes to ~$360. That is about $70/year. It’s pretty much nickel and dime stuff, but it is still annoying. This is not a ruined of unlivable city so much as a downgraded one.

Another lie is that the illegals come from all over and not just Mexico. Actually, ~85% of illegals come from Mexico and many of the rest come from Central America. The illegal alien problem is a problem of illegal, low quality Mesoamerican immigrants. There are some other nationalities that contribute some illegals, but they don’t add up to a large number and in general they are not causing significant problems, so they are not important.

A very large number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans here in California support the illegal aliens. So the illegal issue is really all about Mexican nationalism. It’s all about the La Raza, the race, the people. White people can’t be ethnocentric, but when Mexicans do it, it’s the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Mexican ethnocentrism is no less atavistic or reactionary than any other kind of ethnocentrism.

We really need to get clear on what the Mexicans and Mexican Americans want. What they want is an open border with Mexico for Mexicans to cross in as large of numbers as they wish. That’s what this whole illegal alien argument is all about. Mexicans don’t care about immigrants from any other country; they only care about La Raza.

The current outrage of an amnesty bill in Congress will legalize 11 million illegal aliens. However, with family reunification, it will eventually bring in 30 million more Mexicans very quickly. The vast majority of those 30 million will be low quality immigrants, the lower classes of Mexico. They will come up here and degrade and debase our communities the same as the ones before.

The argument is that we will legalize these 11 million (or 30 million) and then we will seal the border and not let any new ones in. But that’s not how it works here. We have done amnesties before. After each amnesty, they say they are going to seal the border. They never do it. It’s probably not even sealable anyway. Illegals will pour across the border into the foreseeable future. But we won’t let any new ones in! This won’t work either. The demands of the Mexican Lobby in the US are that once an illegal makes it across the border, he’s home free and we have no right to detain him and repatriate him.

The Mexican Lobby has the following demands:

1. Legalize all illegals and let them bring relatives in.
2. Do not seal the border, in fact, don’t even police it at all.
3. Do not repatriate any new illegals who come across.

The problem is that after we legalize the 11 million, since we won’t seal the border (can’t be done) and we won’t detain or return many new illegals because the Mexicans throw a screaming fit whenever we do, very quickly, a huge new pool of millions of new illegals will build up in the US. Soon this pool will swell and there will be demands for another amnesty. This will keep going on into the foreseeable future in sort of an endless repetition.

The troubling issue is that both parties are now apparently captive to the Mexican Lobby in the US (the so-called Hispanic vote). Once you are a prisoner of the Mexican Lobby, you are committed to the three steps above. Eventually we will end up being a northern version of Mexico, with all of its attendant problems.

The following headline and news extract for the Selma (California) Enterprise appeared on this week’s edition of my old hometown paper. Note all of the little neighboring cities are also suffering from the explosive crime rate.

Selma’s Crime Rate Highest in County

By Doug Hoagland
dhoagland@selmaenterprise.com

Of all the cities in Fresno County, Selma ranked first in crime during 2010. At least that’s what one measuring stick used by the FBI shows. Citizens, city council members and police in Selma have been talking for months about a rise in crime. Some might see the FBI statistics as confirmation of an alarming trend in the city. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report — which comes out every year — shows that Selma had the highest crime rate per 100,000 population in 2010. Fresno was second, Kerman was third, Sanger was fourth and Parlier was fifth — rounding out the Top Five.

The list then goes: Mendota, Kingsburg, Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Fowler and Huron. Figures were not available for Orange Cove and San Joaquin.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

When one reads the rest of the crime report article, the Selma Chief of Police is asked to cite the cause for the crime rate. He responds: “I really don’t know”.

“I really don’t know”…..that response says so much about how California has capitulated to a degree of political correctness, derived from the realization that illegal immigrant invaders have saturated the entire state of California…..to the extent that is now impossible for a public official to utter the truth about the causative factors for soaring crime rates throughout the state. This state of denial is compounded by the need for public officials to continue coddling Hispanics “legalized through past amnesties” who support the illegal invasion as some misguided effort to boost Hispanic political power.

This, despite the fact that they are all fowling the cesspool in which they live. Most of the white and black contingent of “legal” residents are now cowards; too fearful to speak out less they offend a Hispanic acquaintance. Fair enough: let them dwell in the squalor of illegal infestation. They have earned it. They have become so blinded to it that they don’t realize that a high quality of life exists elsewhere. Being cowards, they have adopted the practice of looking the other way at the graffiti, the gang activity, the soaring crime, the degradation of their children’s schools.

Three decades ago, before past amnesties opened the flood gates to illegal criminals, all of the farming communities mentioned in this report were thriving small towns with low crime rates and an extremely pleasing quality of life. Now, every single one of these once fine little towns are cesspools of crime, infested with drug smugglers, anchor baby welfare trolls, where decent people can no longer walk the streets at night. According to the latest census report Selma is, like most of California’s invaded cities, 78 percent Hispanic….and likely half of them illegal.

Also cited in this same report is the tragic fact that the local jails are so full these criminals must be turned out early to make way for the next fresh batch of arrestees. The Chief of Police lamented the fact that the “criminal early out” program allows the newly released criminals to go out and commit more crime.

During my entire 22-year Air Force career I always dreamed of retiring to my sedate and peaceful little town where I grew up. Then I came home, took a look around, saw the gangsters and the prolific graffiti that graces every street in town and decided to dwell elsewhere.

California is now a lost cause. It’s citizens have neither the will nor the backbone to drive the illegals out. For those of you who feel your town is immune from the ravages of illegal immigration, think again.

Illegals are spreading across the U.S. in unprecedented numbers now. You have a chance to stop it before you are infested.

The choice is yours. Write your Senators and Congressman and the President and tell them you oppose illegal immigration in any form. Stand strong against it…or be prepared to live in a cesspool.

Mexicans Belong in Mexico

The illegal ones, anyway.

The legal resident alien green card holders can stay. The Mexican-Americans obviously can stay. Is that radical, arrogant or racist? Fine, call me names. Scream and yell.

Let’s look at some other arguments:

Argentinians belong in Argentina. Haitians belong in Haiti. Russians belong in Russia. Chinese belong in China. Indians belong in India. The illegal ones, anyway. If they want to jump through the hoops and become resident aliens and from there citizens, all the power to them. It may take 15 years.

Presidente Jorge Boosh wants to give illegals one day to automagically turn into some kind of Z-card legal citizens. What a slap in the face to all the green card holders, legal immigrants and others who spent so much money, filled out so many forms, and waited so long to secure their dream.

Why would anyone do it the legal way ever again when they can just go illegal and do it on the easy and cheap?

Suppose we had 12 million Argentines, or Chileans, or Indonesians, or Costa Ricans, or Uruguayans, or Dominicans, or Albanians, or Egyptians, or Angolans, or Bangladeshis, or Nepalis, or Laotians, or New Guineans, all illegals, invading our shores? Would it make any difference? Regardless of their plights, they belong in their own countries.

If their reactionary, nightmare, third world rat holes suck, well, then, they need to make revolution there, hopefully peaceful revolution. In some cases, maybe with the gun. That’s the Leftist in me talking.

Name one Communist country that insanely opened its borders to anyone who wanted to invade in order to crush the working class of their own land. There never was one. Marxist rulers were not stupid. They defended their borders and their workers.

Why do their lunatic acolytes believe in the insanity of “open borders”, with its massive security risks and attendant ruination of the American working class?

“But people are so desperate in Mexico”…Wa wa wa. Yes! People are desperate, starving and living in horrible conditions the world over. Why single out Mexicans? If desperate Mexicans get a free get out of jail pass to invade America, why not open up our borders to the miserable of the entire Third World, many of whom are far worse off than the average Mexican?

“But the Mexicans have children!” Hell, everyone has children. All over the world, people have kids. No kidding! So everyone who has kids, and I guess is desperate too, gets to invade America and drive our wages into the gutter forever. Surveys show that about 1/2 to 1/3 of the population would come to the US if they had the chance. That is 2-3 billion human beings.

This is what the lunatic Left and cheap labor Right in the open borders Lobby wants. Can you imagine? After that 2 billion man march on America occurs, America will be Calcutta writ large. And we can sign the death warrant on our republic, too.

The vast majority of nations in the world do not allow visiting or residing Americans, or anyone else I guess, to work, as long as you are living in or visiting the country. Why? They are leaving those positions open for their own people. The Open Borders loons would say that virtually every country on Earth, then, is racist, for not letting foreigners work in the land.

Even if that is racist (let is play games for a moment) is that really such a bad thing? And if the vast majority of nations are viciously racist, does the word mean anything anymore?

Many nations make it quite hard to become a citizen. The Arab World is notorious for this. The Koreans and Japanese have decided that the future residents of their land should be overwhelmingly Koreans and Japanese. And they are not the only ones. This is very common the world over.

Where is the Open Borders crowd? Why are they not screaming at the Arabs, Koreans and Japanese for being horrible racists? How dare these nations exercise sovereignty over the question of citizenship in their lands!

After all, the only way to be nonracist is to open your borders to any army of invaders that wants to invade, to grant the invaders citizenship on demand when they arrogantly demand it, and to let them steal every job they can from your citizens. Now that we know hat it takes to be a “racist” and a “nonracist”, “racism” is starting to look like sanity, eh? (Being sarcastic here).

Is the Anti-Illegal Immigrant Movement Racist?

Repost from the old site.

It’s actually a trick question. Some of members of the anti-immigration movement are racists. Racists always join any movement critical of immigration. So what? This entire argument rests on a fallacious assumption. That the presence of one group in a movement means that all of the other members of the movement share the feelings of that one group.

It’s a well-known logical fallacy called guilt by association. It’s very important to become aware of all of the logical fallacies out there, because people are always using these BS arguments to try to convince you of this or that. Fact is, if you change your mind due to a logical fallacy, you are being fooled. If you do so knowingly, you are a fool. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you are either ignorant or a knowing liar.

“Guilt by association” is widely used and manages to convince hundreds of millions of fools of this or that every year the world over.

Yet, just because I associate with someone, or anyone, does not mean that I share any, all or some of their views.

Some of the kids in my apartment complex I associate with claim to be Hispanic gang members. A Black guy I know here wears a stocking over his head, gangster-style. One of the Chicano guys I was drinking with at the bar the other night looked like he just got out of prison and had a shirt on with an apparent gang logo.

I’m also friends with a guy who is a White Supremacist racist, with the usual Nazi sympathies. He pretty much refuses to speak with anyone who is not White, especially Blacks and Browns. I don’t agree with him, but I’m not going to dissociate with him.

I have friends who are rightwing Republicans and others who are leftwing Democrats and a few who are Communists.

To say that I agree with all of these people would be impossible, as they all hold contradictory views.

Militant Jews are some of the world’s leading experts in devious argumentation, including logical fallacy, lawyerese, sophistry, prevarication and basically the art of verbal BS. I guess that is why there are so many Jewish lawyers? I learned this while doing combat with them in the Mideast groups on Usenet. One of the Jews’ favorite tactics was guilt by association.

If one voiced any sympathy for any Palestinian or Arab group, some obscure terroristic or anti-Semitic incident done by that group was dredged up and you were immediately associated with it and accused of homicidal anti-Semitism. There were also fascist White Supremacists in those groups, and a lot of us were cordial with them. Why not? The Jews were smashing us right and left, so why make more enemies?

The Jews deviously used our cordiality with these bad guys as prima facie evidence that we agreed with Nazism, and therefore were Nazis. As usual, no amount of our protestations of innocence were accepted. I wonder whether these Jews believed their fallacies or if they were deliberately lying about us.

The tactics that these Jews used were, of course, not particular to Jews, but Jews do seem to do this better than anyone else. That’s not necessarily a slam. There is an art to verbal sparring, even the blatantly dishonest kind. After all, sleazy politics makes the world go round, the sleaziest pol wins the cake, and “attorney” is the name of a well-paid profession.

I have seen other groups use these same tactics. Logical fallacies are favorites of other nationalists, not just Jewish nationalists. Turkish nationalists are getting pretty good at aping their Jewish cohorts. Arab nationalists, who mostly hate Jews, act a lot like them in these regards.

After a while, you realize that all nationalists and ultranationalists are speaking the same language, even though most of them hate each others’ guts.

Logical fallacies are also commonly used by conservatives, especially the more hardline types, and I have seen them used by some Marxists. If we call ultranationalism and the Far Left and Right species of fanaticism, we can start to see sleazy argumentation and reliance on logical fallacy as simply markers of general fanaticism and emotional argumentation, and, frankly, the argument of the man who lacks one.

Which leads us to the anti-illegal immigration movement. The fact is, a large majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration, often ferociously so. Surveys show that 75-80% of Americans are against illegal immigration, and they seem more and more angry about it.

In other words, opposing illegal immigration is normal, reasonable American politics. It’s not fanatical or racist or anything like that, unless one wants to make the crazy claim that 80% of Americans are raving racists.

This gives the lie to the open borders crazies’ notion that the anti-illegal immigration movement represents only a small “anti-immigrant” minority. According to them, the rest of us are supposedly open borders nuts like them.

The issue is complicated by polling questions and the actual views of Americans. Polls show that up to 65% or so of Americans support some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals already here.

On the other hand, Americans in these same polls think it is important to lock down the border.

The open borders loons want a completely open border, not just in the South but apparently everywhere. In their insane plan, every single “immigrant”, or now, “migrant” (the words keep changing as they become stigmatized) who strolls across the border gets automatic US citizenship, apparently without any background checks or anything unpleasant like that.

Surely only a small minority of Americans favor such an insane program. The open borders liars conflate Americans’ cynicism about the possibility of deporting 20 million illegals (hence some sort of “legalize them” solution) with implied support for illegal immigrants and open borders, ignoring the nation’s fervent desire to lock down the Southern border as much as possible.

Sure the movement has racists in it, but any rational person knows that the vast majority of those opposing illegal immigration are not profoundly racist people, and if one is opposed to illegal immigration, one is keeping company with 75-80% of the population, including, surely, sadly, but inevitably, some nasty racists.

Bipartisan Support for Slavery in America

Here.

This stunning article from Alternet touches on a subject that no US news outlet will touch as they are all corporate outlets: the profound and inhumane abuse of immigrants via the H-2B guestworker program. On its surface, the H-2B program has no right to exist at all. Its existence is based on the notion that for some bizarre reason, the employer cannot find any or enough Americans to fill the needed the jobs. Nevertheless, most H-2B workers work in places with double digit unemployment.

The last time I was in Yosemite, where I formerly lived, the place was swarming with H-2B guestworkers. When I lived there in 1977, there was not a single job that went open for lack of a US worker to fill it. Now that corporate criminal Delaware North has taken over concessions from the more fair though still abusive Curry Company, many to most of the positions are filled with H-2B guestworkers, easier to abuse and mistreat.

The list of jobs in need of H-2B guestworkers is utterly amazing. One of them is “welder.” In shipyards all up and down the US Gulf Coast, thousands of welding jobs formerly filled by proud American workers are now filled by hyper-exploited H-2B guestworkers. Apparently, “welder” is one of those jobs that Americans just won’t do.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Administration quickly passed a directive allowing enforcement-free mass importation of immigrants, legal and illegal, to do cleanup and rebuilding work in New Orleans. That there were countless able-bodied Blacks in New Orleans was overlooked, or maybe it wasn’t. This directive was passed for one reason and one reason only – so that corporations exploiting the rebuilding process would not have to hire New Orleans Blacks, or any Americans for that matter, to do the work. Instead, tens of thousands of post-Katrina jobs that could have gone to the desperate Blacks of New Orleans went to 25,000 illegal alien criminals.

Scarcely a single word was heard in protest of this directive. All Democrats and all US liberals will fall all over themselves to do anything to worship the Illegal Alien and Immigrant God that they prostrate themselves over. Conservatives will not say a peep because immigrants, legal and illegal cheaply replace costly US workers, On both sides of the aisle, on the Left and the Right, the polarized sides of the political chamber fall all over themselves to beat the US worker to a bloody mass of a pulp.

And it is true: If liberals and Democrats could replace the vast majority of US workers with immigrants, legal or illegal, no matter how exploited, they would do it in a heartbeat. And there is not a conservative who would not do the same.

The abuses of the H-1B program among tech workers in the US and especially in Silicon Valley are many and legion. Yet the loudest champions of the program, a knife expertly aimed at the pulsing heart of the US tech worker, are US Democrats, often liberal Democrats. Of course all Republicans support the plan. And Barack Obama loves nothing so much as he loves his H-1B wage slaves and job thieves.

It is interesting that a progressive organization, in this case, the sickening worms of Morris Dees’ SPLC, are actually protesting about abuses of US workers under the H-2B program. It is incredible that anyone on the Left would attack worker abuses of any kind. Yet the truth is sadder than it appears. The SPLC only wrote this report because the workers being abused were their cherished immigrants. The SPLC would never waste a tear on US workers. Like the rest of the US Left, they care only about immigrant job-thieves. There is no room in their heart for the abused American worker. US workers only get the sympathy of the Left if they hail from some foreign shore.

And what is the SPLC’s solution to the abuses of the H-2B program? A responsible position would be to support the reforms of the program outlined a bill killed with the indispensable help of Senate Democrats. But we know that the SPLC goes far beyond this. The SPLC, like the entire US Left, is an Open Borders organization. Their preferred solution would be abolish the H-2B program and open the US borders to hundreds of millions from the around the world who would quickly funnel through through our ungated edges.

And so we have it: when it comes to US workers, we truly have no friends. The Democrats and Republicans are both corporate capitalist parties, and as such will always oppose the workers when the interests of the workers and our elected leaders corporate masters collide. Selling one’s soul is simple, but it always comes with a price. And indeed, the loudest champions of the horrific slave labor abuses of the H-2B programs have been Democrats, including Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, usually typed as a liberal Democrat.

What we need is a pro-working class party in America. A party that will always or nearly always side with working class Americans, and I emphasize Americans. In the conflict between American workers and foreign invaders and job thieves, the position of the working class party should be obvious.

Time To Junk Internationalism?

Repost from the old site.

Superb commenter James Schipper takes on internationalism and suggests that nationalism is better for workers in this most interesting comment from the comments section of a recent post. My comments follow. I will say that I have a problem with nationalism in general and especially with the sound of the term “national socialism” for obvious reasons. Nationalism leads inevitably to racism, it seems.

But following pure internationalist logic, we are obligated to completely open borders. If you go over to leftwing and liberal pro-immigrant sites and prod them a bit, you often find that they actually do believe in Open Borders for the US.

That would mean that at some point, 1/3 of the world would be here, and 1/2 of Mexico (since 1/3 of the world and 1/2 of Mexico wants to come to the US). I argue that this would be a disaster for this country for many reasons. For one thing, we would become some kind of Calcutta West. For the environment, it would be a complete catastrophe.

At least at the start, unselected immigrants who are not interested in assimilation are only capable of recreating their own society in the new country. So Indians would recreate Calcutta in the US and Mexicans would recreate Mexico City in the US.

An excellent reason to make the immigration process highly rigorous, time-consuming, and difficult with much rejection of potential immigrants who do not make the cut is to insure that those immigrants remaining after the gauntlet-run are dedicated to assimilation.

Unscreened mass immigration, in particular illegal immigration, tends to create masses of immigrants with little interest in assimilating, plus you tend to get countless bad people mixed in with the good.

Many illegal immigrants are actually low-quality immigrants and would be rejected by any sane and rigorous US immigration program. The burden should be on the immigrant to show us precisely how and why they are going to be net positive to our country and not a negative.

Rigorously screened immigrants forced to go through a difficult and trying immigration process would be less likely to recreate Calcutta and Mexico City in the US.

Massive immigration of unskilled laborers is not only bad for ordinary workers, whose wages are driven downward, but also for taxpayers in general. There is no way that an unskilled immigrant can ever pay as much in taxes as he consumes in government services. There are two distributions going on here: upward redistribution of income among natives and transfer of income from natives to immigrants.

Your analysis above is essentially correct because it is based on the obvious premise that the real enemies of workers in high-wage countries are workers in low-wage countries. However, this is in flagrant contradiction with the Marxist idea that there is harmony of interests between all the workers of the world. That Marxist idea is totally false.

In a closed economy, workers and capitalists are like buyers and sellers. The interests of buyers and sellers are not necessarily harmonious but they are complementary and therefore in principle compatible.

Capital without labor is like a truck without a driver and labor without capital is like a transportation worker without a truck. Such a worker can’t transport much. Capital without labor is useless and labor without capital is unproductive.

Under national capitalism, there can be solidarity between workers and capitalists. Under global capitalism there can’t be because capital will use foreign labor as scabs, as you pointed out.

You may not realize it, but you are actually a national socialist in the literal sense of the term. The slogan of national socialism is not “Proletarians of the world, unite”, but “Workers and capitalists of the nation, unite in the interest of the nation”. National socialism does not preach international proletarian brotherhood but national brotherhood.

The Marxist notion of class struggle is pernicious because it makes national solidarity impossible, the only solidarity that can exist. Class struggle should not be fomented but overcome. Divisions can only be overcome by appealing to a higher common interest, and that can only be the nation.

It is only when the capitalists abandon all solidarity with their proletarian compatriots that class struggle becomes necessary, but such struggle should not be waged at a global level because the foreign workers are the allies of the capitalists. Instead of preaching class struggle, the left should appeal to the national sentiments of capitalists.

You and Patrick Buchanan are actually quite close. Your position is also quite similar to the BNP and the German NPD.

Another Marxist idea that is completely false is that workers have no country. It is often capitalists that have no country. Workers are tied to a place and that makes them patriotic. Nobody can have jobs in 20 different countries, but capitalists can easily own businesses in 20 countries.

If there are people without a country, it is global capitalists. A former CEO of the “Dutch” multinational Phillips once said that he wished that the head office of Phillips could be located in the middle of the Atlantic, which goes to show what a loyal Dutchman he was.

Over 80% of the employees of Phillips are now non-Dutch, so to call Phillips a Dutch company simply because most of its owners and top managers are Dutch is to show a capitalist bias. A company does not only consist of owners and managers but also of employees. Calling a company like Phillips Dutch is like saying that SA under apartheid was a white country because whites had most of the wealth and power.

The superiority of national socialism over Marxist socialism was proven in WWII. When Stalin had to motivate the Russians to fight, he didn’t appeal to international proletarian solidarity, which would have been a complete flop, but he appealed to Russian nationalism because genuine nationalism unites while Marxist class struggle only divides.

Socialism can only work at a national level. The Swedish socialist, among the most successful in the world, created a welfare state for Swedes only. It was solidarity that ended at the national border. Now that the Swedish socialists have been infected with political correctness, they are undermining the Swedish welfare state by importing huge numbers of immigrants.

As one Dutch socialist put it, the welfare state is a strictly national arrangement.

The Left has hurt its cause immensely by its hostility to religion and to nationalism. Socialism without nationalism is impotent and nationalism without socialism is fraudulent. A person who claims to be a nationalist but who is a libertarian willing to let poorer members of the nation languish in misery and ignorance is like a man who claims to be a good family man but who never helps less fortunate family members.

Bottom line: there is absolutely nothing progressive about massive immigration of low-skilled to unskilled labor whatsoever. Citizens suffer from cutbacks in government social programs meant to help them.

There is a redistribution of income upwards in the citizenry itself, such that the lower 80% or so of society loses and the upper 20% of so of society gains. IOW, owners and possibly upper management and investors make out big and the workers (generally 80% or so of society) lose money.

In addition to losing money, they also lose services. It is quite possible that they may also see tax hikes to pay for diminishing services. Workers see their wages decline, suffer income losses, lose social services and get tax hikes.

The top 20% of society gets a tremendous amount of increased income, sees dramatic decreases in the wages it must be its workers, and in all probability sees the Gramscian culture of society change in favor of the top 20%, who now increasingly run things and dominate society in general. Why? With the dramatic income shift upwards towards the top 20%, this group will be able to buy the government more and more.

Since government is mostly made up such folks (in Congress and the Executive Branch), they will be delighted by their increased wealth and will continue to direct government policies to continue this redistribution.

The lopsided money shift will also mean that more and more of a nation’s discretionary spending will be done by the top 20%. I believe already they spend at least and possibly way over 50% of all consumer spending. So advertisers direct most of their advertising to this top group, and just ignore the bottom 80%.

This is why when you turn on the TV, you see one advertisement after another directed towards the top 20% of society. This is why when you open up Time Magazine, 90% of the people they interview are in the top 20%, and most of their stories seem to be directed at this group also. It is almost as if the rest of us did not even exist.

I would also like to point out the inevitable: sitting there watching TV and seeing one ad after another directed at the top 20% and realizing that one is a million miles away from that income bracket, many folks will only get resentful and angry and determined to get into that bracket.

Since even if everyone tried to get into the top 20%, 80% would fail, most people are just never going to get there. This increases the dog eat dog mindset, societal atomization and probably even the crime rate.

Liberals and the Left support this!

Why Jews Support Open Borders

There are some comments suggesting that Jews support Open Borders for less than ulterior motives. One suggestion was that Jews supported Open Borders in order to get Hispanics on board with pro-Israel sentiment. Another suggestion was that Jews made an agreement to support the Black Agenda if Blacks would ease up on South Africa, an Israeli ally.

First of all, Jews are going to support the Black agenda anyway, so there’s no need for an agreement. Second of all, this deal did not work very well because Blacks kept hammering away at South Africa nevertheless.

Sure, Jews are basically looking out for their own. Of course they are.

But that doesn’t explain Jewish liberalism very much. Jewish liberalism is deep and heartfelt and frankly goes against their economic self-interest as wealthy people. It’s probably a holdover from the early days when the Jews first came here and they were poor and often Leftist. Then there is the Reform notion of Tikkun Olam, making the world a better place. Jews have been heavily involved in many or most of the progressive projects in the past century. Most Jews think that’s pretty cool. Why were they doing that? Maybe Tikkun Olam.

The Right has been anti-Semitic for a long time, at least a century or more in Europe and in the US.

Before that, Napoleon was a progressive who tried to overthrow conservative monarchies in Europe in the name of a progressive project, almost a Woodrow Wilson or neoconservative before his time. He also liberated the Jews. This may have begun the love affair between progressives and the Jews. In other words, Jewish liberalism or Leftism may have begun with Napoleon.

US conservatism was anti-Semitic for most of this century. It was only with the Reagan Revolution and the New Right headquartered in Orange County, California, that the Right began to move away from that. The Birchers also turned away from anti-Semitism after a bit.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party is very racist, mostly against Blacks and to a lesser extent against Hispanics. Jews see that and worry. Most Jews figure that a White who hates Blacks or maybe Hispanics probably doesn’t like Jews very much either. It’s a form of paranoia, but it’s based on reality.

Further, the Republican Party is insanely Christian fundamentalist. Jews don’t think too much of Christianity period for historical reasons. And they really don’t like these fundie Christians one bit. These fundies are like Christians on steroids, and most liberal Jews do not like them or trust them.

We have not talked enough on here about the sociology of political expression. Jews grow up in a liberal environment, so they turn into liberals.

In my previous post, I noted a number of towns I had lived in and how it seemed that every White person in the towns was a conservative Republican. I never was, but frankly that was not an easy position for me to take, and I suffered a lot for it. The peer pressure to go along with the crowd is extreme in White communities, and I think this is one reason so many Whites go Republican. They are simply doing what everyone else is doing.

We see this with conservatism in Texas, Arizona, the mountain West, the Ozarks, the South and Appalachia. I’ve known conservative Whites from these areas, and I often felt that they got into that politics because that was what everyone else was doing. Most didn’t seem to have a logical reason for being reactionaries.

What’s going on here is that liberal Jews like the Jewish organizations think that anti-immigrant sentiment is bad for the Jews. They were all immigrants not too long ago. And they know that anti-immigrant sentiment leads to nativism, which turns to racism, which turns to racist nationalism or racist ethnonationalism, which has a tendency historically to turn on the Jews as not real Sneeds of Sneedland or whatever.

Also, most of these organizations are made up of liberal Jews, and if you are a Democratic Party liberal, I know this from experience, it is utterly mandatory that you get on board with the Open Borders thing. If you don’t, you are shunned and ultimately banned from forums or cast out of party circles in one way or another. The Democratic Party and liberalism has a number of issues on which you are not allowed to dissent, and Open Borders is one of them.

“Progressive Nationalism,” by Metal Gear

Good stuff from Free Media Productions.

I often don’t completely agree with what they have to say on things, but this is one of the best he’s ever written. Good on the conflict between internationalism and nationalism, the problems of nationalism, which tends to be inherently reactionary, the fixation of the Left with destructive internationalism, the reality that many Left figures were actually nationalists, etc.

Also goes into why Trotskyites, as extreme internationalists, race mixers and culture destroyers, are up to no good, why their view goes against human nature, and why they have always failed.

The problem with nationalists is that they are inherently reactionary. And most of them tend towards fascism of one type or another. In addition, they are as irrational as the nuttiest religionist.

That said, love of one’s homeland, language and culture has a place in multicultural corporate McWorld. Progressive nationalism may well be the answer. Surely in the developed world, internationalism taken to its logical extreme (open borders) is suicidal and will drive everyone down to the lowest common demoninator in a race for the bottom and the 3rd World essentially replicates itself across the world.

Metal Gear’s piece also takes apart the Right and Left idiots blaming the Jews for multicultural McWorld. It’s idiotic. All of the elites all over the world and capitalism itself are the globalizers. The Jew Thang is just a Holy Grail, a skeleton key to the known world that gives you that epiphany of light where everything crashes together and it all adds up. Except you’re on a rabbit trail to nowhere, the Jew Trail. There’s little light or wisdom in the anti-Semitic conception of reality.

Open borders means that the 3rd World will of course stay remain the 3rd World, probably even worse because all the smart folks will take off for the 1st World. But there will be enough typical Third Worlders flooding into the First World that after a bit, the First World will have a Third World look to it. A bunch of crabs climbing to the top of the barrel and all pulling each other down to the bottom of the pail. There will be, crabs scuttling at the bottom of a bucket, in a Third World planet.

Hopefully I’ll be dead before then.

On the Non-persistance of Any Jewish Agenda

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the “Jews are bad for Whites” thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z’s an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.

He’s a soft White nationalist, but he’s for Blacks. I think this is healthy.

If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you’re ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I’m for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I’m proud of my ancestors. That’s normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?

Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn’t necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?

Z writes:

Though I read it often, I’m not a huge fan of American Renaissance because of the blatant and over-the-top anti-Black/African stance of the commenters there, and also because they totally ignore/censor articles, posts, and discussion regarding the Jewish Question.

Obviously though, AmRen is fully correct when it comes to the current mass-immigration issue.

Anyhow, being anti-Black is bottom of the barrel racism in my opinion, too easy, too simple-minded…too desperate, too low.

I am from the South so perhaps I am more sympathetic to the plight of African Americans than most White Americans because I grew up amongst them, went to school with them, played sports with them, and have seen the poverty/degradation/ignorance in which many of them unfortunately live.

And just to say: a system of local agrarian socialism would be an excellent system in helping many African Americans become more communally sufficient, because many Blacks in America are still very rural and they actually own a lot of good agricultural land too in America nowadays.

In my opinion though, if one wants to understand the real cancer eating away at White/Euro cultures, one must confront the Jews. Jews have done more damage and will continue to do more damage to White/European majority societies than Blacks ever did or will do.

In fact, Jews were in many ways central to the slave trade which brought hordes of African slaves on to American shores over the centuries (I intend to eventually post about this on my blog when I become more active on there).

Damn, Jews have been promoting ‘multiculturalism’ for a long damn time, haven’t they?

I respond: I don’t think it makes sense to blame the whole slave trade on the Jews. That’s not rational.

My problem with the whole “Jews are the enemy of our race” thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They’re just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers – White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby – the Whites in it are Gentiles.

I have another problem with this – if it’s so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don’t ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?

Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They’re for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little “deconstruction”.

I know a White Gentile who does this right now – he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it’s about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I’m thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.

Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I’m not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.

It’s true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920′s.

The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.

Jews just promote what’s good for the Jews, that’s all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.

No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he’s down. Talk about an easy target.

The Jews are relatively amoral on their project – there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there’s no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, “Is it good for the Jews?”.

100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican

Repost from the old site.

If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.

I’ve made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I’ve never met one, and I’ve never seen one anywhere on the Net.

The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.

In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.

James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.

Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can’t get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It’s true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it’s being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that’s apparently legal.

The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.

The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.

Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes – they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.

Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It’s a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.

*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to “heighten the contradictions” in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will “wake up the sleeping Whites” to the White racist cause.

The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.

I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to “shake things out”. I was appalled. I really don’t think it’s ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.

The Multicultural Curriculum at California Universities

A friend of mine is at university now in California. He has to take some BS called the Multicultural Curriculum. It’s a requirement. They might as well call it the White People Are Evil Curriculum. It’s really stupid.

My friend is the only ethnocentric White in his classes. The other Whites are all self-hating idiots. He met one White guy who was going to join the Brown Berets (Hispanic fascists).

Many of the Whites are Armenians, and to a person, they refuse to identify as Whites. They are Armenians, not Whites, and are also rather White-hostile.

The Hispanics are really militant and all have a major grudge against Whitey. Some of the Hispanics are highly agitated and militant, almost revolutionary. The spark of their glorious revolutionary flame? Illegal aliens! The Hispanics are not very good students, and many of them drop out, but they are better students than the Blacks.

There are Blacks in the classes too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff for some reason. In general, they don’t even go to class. Most of them are gone before the class is over, having dropped the class or dropped out of school. It seems it’s not so much that they are dumb but more that they just are not interested in class. The smarter Blacks are the females, but some of them are also mouthy, argumentative, ignorant and won’t take no for an answer. They also have a “Let’s wing it,” slacker type attitude.

There are a lot of Asians too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff. They are excellent students, and a lot of them are females.

The teachers are generally Jews or non-Whites like Asians or East Indians. They’ve all got a grudge against Whites. He had a Chinese professor who went on and on about the Chinese Exclusion Act as if it were the crime of the century.

The Jewish teachers are some of the worst White-haters of them all. I never cared much about this type of Jew, but I developed an intense dislike of one Jewish sociology professor my friend had just based on his tales of the guy. There can be no doubt about it – this guy is simply an enemy of me and my people. The professor was absolutely animated with anti-White animus. It’s what he was all about.

The professors all promote some weird garbage “Leftism” that is a mixture of globalization with a strong neoliberal and pro-corporate slant on economics (endless praise of “free markets”), and pro-greed consumerist bourgeois ethic, combined with Open Borders for the West -  unlimited immigration of “good” Third Worlders to the “evil” West. It’s basically “free markets and open borders.”

I fail to see anything even slightly progressive about this project.