India & Muslims

In certain parts of the world, influxes of Muslim immigrants is dealt with differently than here in the U.S.

From The Daily Caller:

Indian officials are registering Bangladeshi residents in the state of Assam in an apparent bid to reduce the Muslim population.

“The Hindu rate of population growth is declining. But the Muslim rate is rising. Most of the Muslims here are from Bangladesh. If this continues, the Assamese Hindus will become a minority soon — we will lose our language, our culture, our identity,” Assam’s finance minister told The Washington Post.

Language.

Culture.

Identity.

Posted in Death of the West, Immigration, Islam | Leave a comment

The Ideology of Unrestricted Immigration

In Modern Age, Chilton Williamson Jr. has an excellent piece on “The Ideology of Unrestricted Immigration”. This piece is well worth it and contains lots of historical details. Williamson’s general thesis:

Whether the United States should allow any immigration at all is a question that has never been considered by our national government, but rather how much immigration, what kind of immigrants, and from where. Yet only after that existential question had been framed and carefully considered should the immigration issue have been passed on to the stage of detailed policymaking. The American Founders believed immigration to have been quite as unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, as the American majority does today.

Of the standard counterarguments from liberals and GOP, Inc:

America is the exceptional nation and therefore immune to the historical laws, demographic and otherwise, that have limited and constrained every nation in history. For immigrationists, the historical fact that other nations have been destroyed by immigration amounting actually to invasion (which is what we are experiencing) gives us no good reason to suppose that America, too, is susceptible to similar destructive forces. The perennial slogan of the dedicated immigrationist is “Immigration Now, Immigration Forever!” Because immigration did not destroy the country in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it won’t now and in the future. This is not rational thinking, or critical thinking, or historical thinking; it is ideological thinking—or no thinking at all.

Exclusion on nearly any ground is unfair, unequal, and discriminatory in the case of individuals, as well as groups. In the context of immigration, the liberal argument from rights and fairness emphasizes the ideological concern for individual immigrants, while overlooking the communitarian interest of the native population. But reasons drawn from considerations regarding the personal welfare of would-be immigrants and individual fairness are not the sole moral considerations at stake. The problem in its individual dimension is complicated by the valid moral claims of nations and communities to their own well-being and comfort, to their self-identity, their coherence, and their right to self-determination, and even self-preservation. The argument for exclusion speaks to what Michael Walzer calls the maintenance of “communities of character” built on consensus rather than on some universal ideal of moral perfection.

America is “the permanently unfinished country,” as Nathan Glazer once said. About twenty years ago, a Chinese-Hawaiian student, encouraged by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal, confided to him that she would grade America “incomplete.” This sort of thinking, very prevalent in the United States today, reminds me of Nietzsche’s remark that the modern world is obsessed with becoming, while ignoring being. It was Toynbee who observed, “The same elements that build up an institution eventually lead to its downfall.” And Richard Lamm, a former governor of Colorado, argued thirty years ago that “immigration reform is not the death of the American Dream. . . . It is the necessary precondition for the preservation of the dream.”

Most importantly is his rejoinder to the ‘proposition nation’ concept that underlies pro-immigrationist positions:

America is not a nation in the sense that all other nations are and have been nations, but a “proposition country,” having no history and no identity apart from certain eighteenth-century political notions embodied in its Constitution and common law. Allan Bloom described the United States as a system founded by philosophers and their students, a great stage on which political theories are personified. But those eighteenth-century notions were mainly British ones, as of course the common law is, while the “philosophers” and “students” were of British descent. And since the colonies that created the United States were British ones, so too, in that sense, is their creation of 1787.

There is no space here to argue the proper definition of a “nation.” Suffice it to say that the propositionists’ arguments are even less remarkable for the thinness of their historical sense than they are for their determination to depersonalize the United States by reducing the country from a historical fact to an intellectual abstraction, which in its concrete form is a vast machine designed to manufacture democracy—and democracies. The quickest and surest way to destroy the American nation is to treat it as something other than the historical nation it really is, as the fastest way to kill a horse is to feed it on stardust and moonbeams, as if it were a unicorn.

In terms of political philosophy, seeing the U.S. as ‘becoming’ rather than ‘being’ is what underlies much of the spurious and idealistic ‘proposition nation’ concept.

Posted in Immigration, Political Theory | Leave a comment

NYT: 12/1/16

Here is day 21 (approximately) of the NYT’s period of sober reflection on how they got the election so wrong (e.g., not understanding Trump nor his supporters):

nyt-2016_1201

Posted in NYT | Leave a comment

Jimmy Fallon & Metallica – Enter Sandman

Using toy instruments:

Posted in Humor, Music | Leave a comment

The Frankfurt School Goes to the Movies

Over at The Right Stuff, there’s a good post on “The Frankfurt School Goes to the Movies”:

The Frankfurt School was a Jewish intellectual movement beginning in Weimar Germany, which rejected Marxist class warfare (Klassenkampf) for cultural warfare (Kulturkampf). Disappointed with the triumph of fascism in Europe and the rise of a totalitarian state in the Soviet Union (especially when Joseph Stalin purged the formerly Jewish-dominated Bolshevik Party), the Frankfurt School determined that the reason for Communism’s failure was ethno-centrism, anti-Semitism, and authoritarian personality traits in the Gentile proletariat. So long as these personality traits existed – which the Frankfurt School believed stemmed from childhood – the Gentile proletariat would continue to fall short of their revolution and utopia. Using Freudian psychoanalysis (itself another Jewish intellectual movement) to seek and destroy these personality traits, the Frankfurt School “pathologized” healthy and high-functioning human behavior as “ethno-centric,” “anti-Semitic,” and “authoritarian.” Only when these personality traits were removed could true Communism be achieved. According to Kevin B. MacDonald, author of a three-volume study of Jewish group evolutionary strategy, “At a deep level the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing Gentile group affiliations.”

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Film | Leave a comment

Metallica – Now That We’re Dead (2016)

Posted in Music | Leave a comment

Lionel Shriver

Writing in Commentary, Jonathan Foreman discusses the writings of novelist Lionel Shriver (“Lionel Shriver Is Out of Line… And thank God”):

Shriver had been invited by the Brisbane Writers Festival to discuss “community and belonging.” Instead, Shriver gave a talk about “fiction and identity politics” that criticized the idea of “cultural appropriation” and other forms of political correctness. She espoused the right of writers to create characters and speak in the voices of people ethnically or culturally different from themselves, pointing out that “otherwise, all I could write about would be smart-alecky 59-year-old 5-foot-2-inch white women from North Carolina.”

She excoriated contemporary forms of politically correct censorship with typically astringent fearlessness and rubbished the whole notion of identity politics: “Membership of a larger group is not an identity. Being Asian is not an identity. Being gay is not an identity. Being deaf, blind, or wheelchair-bound is not an identity, nor is being economically deprived.” It was a tough, fine, coruscating essay that should be widely read by every university head, arts administrator, and literature teacher in the West. But it might have gone unnoticed beyond Queensland had not a local activist stormed out of the talk and then written about its offensiveness for the Guardian.

The article was by Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a 25-year-old Sudanese-Australian author (of a memoir, of course), engineer, and activist, who had ostentatiously walked out of Shriver’s speech (while live-tweeting her walkout). Many people who came across the article, myself included, thought initially that it was a witty spoof of the ultra–politically correct counterculture that has taken such a hold in many academic and literary institutions. Its censorious mixture of ignorance, arrogance, inverted racism, melodramatic self-pity, and self-righteousness (at one point Abdel-Magied declares that Shriver’s dismissal of “cultural appropriation” is “the kind of attitude that lays the foundation for prejudice, for hate, for genocide”) seemed almost too perfect, too titanically solipsistic to be real.

An un-PC novelist; how refreshing! (That quote I’ve bolded above is particularly nice.)

On Amazon, Shriver’s 2016 dystopian novel The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047, is described as a book that:

… explores the aftershocks of an economically devastating U.S. sovereign debt default on four generations of a once-prosperous American family. Down-to-earth and perfectly realistic in scale, this is not an over-the-top Blade Runner tale. It is not science fiction.

In 2029, the United States is engaged in a bloodless world war that will wipe out the savings of millions of American families. Overnight, on the international currency exchange, the “almighty dollar” plummets in value, to be replaced by a new global currency, the “bancor.” In retaliation, the president declares that America will default on its loans. “Deadbeat Nation” being unable to borrow, the government prints money to cover its bills. What little remains to savers is rapidly eaten away by runaway inflation.

From a snarky WaPo review:

Contemporary fictions set in future dystopias tend to reflect liberal anxieties, such as climate change or the corporate takeover of our public institutions. Lionel Shriver’s 12th novel is something very different. “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047” approaches the imminent collapse of American society from the right side of the political spectrum. As it opens, entitlements have driven the national debt to unsustainable levels, making the dollar worthless. Expansionist Keynesian economists are proved to be a “gang of charlatans.” A desperate nation renounces its debts, foreign and domestic. To refill the treasury, the federal government confiscates citizens’ gold, right down to their wedding rings….

The Mandibles go hungry amid the ruins of an America that hasn’t been made great again, and it’s clear who the culprits are. Becoming bluntly partisan, the novel uses fantasy and name-checks to score points against Florence’s fellow liberals in her time and ours. The immigration amnesty of 2020 is followed by a constitutional amendment that allows for a foreign-born president: a pudgy, lisping Mexican, just one of the novel’s several racist characterizations. The criminally incompetent Fed chairman is named Krugman. Later, some very bad stuff goes down during the Chelsea Clinton administration.

So, with Shriver, we have someone following in the footsteps of Robert Heinlein.

In his Commentary piece, Foreman writes:

Early in the novel when America’s first Mexican-American president insists on giving all his addresses first in Spanish and then in English, one of Shriver’s WASP characters looks forward to the day when white Americans finally become a minority, too:

They’d get their own university White Studies departments, which could unashamedly tout Herman Melville. Her children would get cut extra slack in college admissions regardless of their text scores. They could all suddenly assert that being called “white” was insulting, so that now you had to say “Western-European American,” the whole mouthful. While to each other they’d cry “What’s up, cracker?” with a pally, insider collusion, any nonwhites who employed such a bigoted term would get raked over the coals on CNN. Becoming a minority would open the door to getting roundly, festively offended at every opportunity.

Alas, when whites do become a minority in the U.S., they will never be afforded the abovementioned rhetorical tools of victim-hood. They will forever be subjugated, called ‘racist’, forever called to atone for their Original Sin (slavery) which will forever be the ‘root cause’ of blacks behaving badly and the like.

Nevertheless, Shriver here reminds me of France’s Michel Houellebecq.

There is something in the air.

Posted in Alt-Right, Literature | Leave a comment

Paul Gottfried on Jewish Victimology

The great Paul Gottfried is one of the good guys. Here he is discussing Jewish victimology, the war against white Christianity, and the stifling of dissent.

Posted in Anti-White, Jewish | Leave a comment

Politico: Immigration & Jeff Sessions as AG

Jeff Sessions has been my favorite Senator for the better part of 15 years. With regards to the issue of immigration (both legal and illegal), he’s been a lone paleo voice in the Senate. Politico has a piece on Sessions that, for me, makes the air fresher and food taste better. (“Immigration-hardliner Sessions could execute crackdown as AG”):

SessionsFor two decades in the Senate, Jeff Sessions led an anti-immigration crusade that made him an outlier in GOP politics — raging against illegal immigration and an excess of foreign workers well before Donald Trump tore onto the political scene.

But next year, Sessions likely will be the one engineering the immigration crackdown.

If confirmed as Trump’s attorney general, the Alabama senator would instantly become one of the most powerful people overseeing the nation’s immigration policy, with wide latitude over the kinds of immigration violations to prosecute and who would be deported.

As the nation’s top cop, Sessions would be able to direct limited department resources to pursuing immigration cases. He could launch federal investigations into what he perceives as discrimination against U.S. citizens caused by immigration. He would be in charge of drafting legal rationales for immigration policies under the Trump administration.

And Sessions, as attorney general, could find ways to choke off funding for “sanctuary cities,” where local officials decline to help federal officials identify undocumented immigrants so they can be deported.

Some immigrant advocates are alarmed by the idea of a Justice Department led by someone they see as far outside the mainstream.

Yes, such views are certainly ‘far outside the mainstream’…. if by ‘mainstream’ one meansimmigrant advocates.

Sessions has also been a longtime critic of the proliferating and anti-U.S.-citizen-worker H1-B visa program:

It’s not just illegal immigration policies that have riled up Sessions. Last year, he and a bipartisan group of senators pressed then-Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate potential visa abuses at Southern California Edison, a utility company that had been accused of laying off hundreds of workers in favor of cheaper foreign workers through the H-1B visa program.

As attorney general, Sessions would be in a position to lead those investigations himself.

Oh, and there will be his oversight of prisons:

The attorney general also oversees the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Sessions could work in tandem with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that immigrants here illegally would be deported immediately after serving time.

We know Dems will try to block him on everything, but they don’t have the votes.

So, who do we need to worry about? The John McCains and Lindsey Grahamnestys of Congress:

Sessions has often been on the losing side of immigration clashes in the Senate, adopting stances at times seen as too restrictive even for fellow Republicans.

He fought tooth and nail against a comprehensive immigration reform measure drafted by the so-called Gang of Eight in 2013. He advocated not only against legalizing undocumented immigrants but also pushed for a hard cap on all legal immigrants — a policy that had little support, even from Republicans.

Sessions has moved from a lone Senate voice to the Attorney General of the United States…. under a President Trump.

Did you ever imagine you’d ever see anything like this happen in your lifetime?

Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

Ohio State Rampage

It looks like the perpetrator of today’s Ohio State University rampage was probably a racist, Islamophobic Trump supporter:

An Ohio State University student plowed a car into a campus crowd, then jumped out and started stabbing people with a butcher knife before being shot dead by police Monday morning, officials said….

Law enforcement officials told NBC News the suspect’s name is Abdul Razaq Ali Artan, an 18-year-old student at the university. He was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident of the United States, officials said.

Imagine that.

More ‘hate crimes’ in the wake of Trump’s POTUS win.

Posted in Immigration, Islam | Leave a comment