Alt Left: Many Illegal Immigrant Trump Supporters Do Want What Is Best for Our Country

Incidentally, a lot of the anti-illegal immigration Trumpies actually want what’s best for the country too. I dislike a lot of the fanatical attitude about these folks and in particular the way Trump is going about it which is unnecessarily harsh and yes, divisive. But I do believe in giving credit where it’s due. Just because I dislike Trump supporters doesn’t mean that their hearts are in the right place on some issues.

Importing vast numbers of low-IQ, poorly educated peasants from Third World Mesoamerican countries doesn’t seem to benefit the US one bit. Everywhere these people settle in large numbers turns into something of a slum. Not nearly as bad as a Black ghetto but usually a decline from a previously existing White locale.

Illegal aliens are not good for America. Illegals are bad for America. They drive down wages while driving up rents. Their descendants increase the crime rate by 3.3X. And there are no jobs that Americans won’t do. I lived in a White working class town for many years and there was not one job that a White person would not do, including many that are the illegal-lovers say Americans won’t do.

Farm work is a bit different, but around here, a lot of legal immigrants and even 2nd generation American citizens (possibly anchor babies) go out and work in the fields. In fact, by age 18-23, many former gang associated types are out working in the fields! Isn’t that incredible? From gangbanging to picking crops in the fields, something Americans won’t do.

It’s not all illegals out in the fields or in the packing houses. I hear about jobs in those places regularly and I often hear, “You need papers.” So they’re only hiring people who are here legally. In fact I have heard in the last few years that a lot of the farms and ranches are requiring papers for field work.

I was told that this is one reason why a lot of the illegals are going home. I suppose I am guilty of furthering this problem. After all, I like to hire young illegal alien Mexican women as maids. I mostly do this to try to seduce them because I’m a scumbag, but I also like to get the place cleaned up and help them out.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Mass Immigration Has Resulted in a Decline In the Intelligence of America

Sami: You may be right, but mass immigration from the 3rd world has been going on for 53 years. And only a 2 point IQ drop. That doesn’t strike me as, quite, catastrophic.

It has exploded in recent years. In the 1970’s, there were only 300-400,000 immigrants/year, and illegal immigration was almost zero. In the 80’s, it exploded and it’s been off the charts ever since. In addition, Hispanics have exploded as a percentage of the population from a very low number to ~17%. In fact, that could easily account for the decline right there – a relatively low IQ population (IQ = 90) exploding as a percentage of the population.
Let me tell you: This state was completely different in the 1970’s and early 80’s than it is today. My state is like the Goddamned United Nations now. You go to downtown LA and you would not even think you were in America. The Bay Area doesn’t look the United States either. In LA you can drive for miles and miles and scarcely see one sign in the English language.
I do not think a 2 point IQ drop is catastrophic, but it is a bit alarming. The very notion that mass immigration should result in national IQ drops alone is completely insane. What country would voluntarily mass import people of lower intelligence and subsequently lower the intelligence of the nation? It’s madness.
 

Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.

Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?

University Enrollment and Degrees and Affirmative Action

Zamfir: Yeah it’s harder to fudge in math, but it does happen there too. Where I am schools get money to enroll more women in engineering, grades be damned.

Yeah, and will they pass at university level? If they can’t cut it and got in on AA, 100% will flunk out.

Zamfir: But anyway there are millions of people in humanities where all kinds of fudging can be done pretty easily.

I went to university with a lot of people who muddled through with C’s. They weren’t stupid. They had IQ’s of ~100, which is average. But average IQ doesn’t cut it at a good university.
Furthermore, I got a Masters in Linguistics, and it was the hardest thing I ever did. I almost didn’t get it and had to fight them for it. And I have a 147 IQ, which is genius level. 1/1,000 people have a score that high. That’s .1% If there are 1,000 people in a building, I am smarter than everyone in that damned building, and even I had a hard time with that Humanities Masters. 
They were not giving them out like candy; they made you work like a sleigh dog in the arctic to get it. They kicked your ass until you got the degree. They were not letting you out without a fight, and to say they had high standards is to put it mildly.
I resent this idea you have that MA’s are given out trivially, at least in my field. Bottom line is, in my field, if you didn’t have what it took, no way in Hell you got that degree. Not happening. You will flunk out.

Zamfir: Math grad students from Africa. Sure. But look at grades and IQ for Africans versus the rest of the world or Americans. If there really were lots I would be suspicious. There is a big IQ/grade/achievement gap there. Maybe they skimmed off the top of the African population. But why?
There are going to be lots of better qualified White or Asian applicants out there… Suggests some kind of bias.”

Yes, Africans are remarkably unintelligent but their genetic variability is so high that there are many extraordinarily smart Africans. And I have met some of them. One African I knew from Benin is literally one of the smartest people I have ever met. The Africans with degrees I met here in the US are smart as whips. I met an African Linguistics professor at Berkeley, and I hate to be redundant, but once again I felt like I was meeting the smartest person I had ever met. This man was insanely smart, so smart you wonder if he’s from the same planet as you are.
Yes, we are skimming the cream of the crop in Africa. Of course we are. We don’t let in many Africans, and a lot of the only ones we let in are “the Kenyan with a Masters Degree.” We reject 99% of African immigration requests. The Embassy people are all race realists, and they know what these people are like.
There are indeed quite a few brilliant mathematics students from Africa in our universities. This isn’t the first time I have heard of it. There are not lots of better qualified Asian and White applicants, and anyway his school is open enrollment, so no one gets turned down.
African immigrants have the highest IQ’s of any US immigrant group at 110. You never knew that, did you?
And if those Africans can’t cut it, they will flunk out. In math, you will flunk out real fast at university level if you can’t cut it. They don’t mess around.

Some Thoughts on Patriotardism and Protestant Fundamentalism

Greeneyedpea: Thank you Robert for this. I agree.
I don’t want to mix up “conservatives” with “religious folks”, but do you have any thoughts on that? Most of the time, the conservatives that I run into are “born again” or “evangelical” Christians, and they are usually the most hateful, judgmental crowd around. I was in the evangelical movement for years, but left, b/c I could not stand the fear-based ideology – the list of no-nos, or you’ll go to hell, the fake kindnesses while you’re stabbed in the back in private, etc. Bitter…maybe. I think Jesus won’t recognize most of them.
A weird example: Many in the rural town I lived in for a while have the bumper sticker: “Proud to be an American”. I have always thought that to be odd. Pride is an emotion one should have for an accomplishment, or hard work, or a talent that is nurtured with practice. We have no say in where we are born.
If one is born in America, I think the phrase should be “Blessed to be an American” (in essence, giving thanks to God who predetermined that your life would start in America), or “Grateful to be an American”. And you would think that those conservatives that have this bumper sticker would agree with this, but no they are proud, damn it.
The ironic thing is that when I bring up an immigrant who became a naturalized citizen as being the shining example of someone who truly can say “Proud to be an American” (i.e. they worked for it via studying and passing a test most born-Americans could not pass, by the way), their face turns, and its clear they don’t like immigrants of any form (legal or illegal, especially), and there is no acknowledgment of the work this person has put in to become an American citizen, and the worst here “They are not ‘true’ Americans anyway”. Ugh. I know these are random, disjointed thoughts, but I find conservatives to be those patriotic, evangelical types. And it’s nauseating.

I am a bit religious myself, but you will probably not find a more secular Christian.
The Protestant fundamentalists are particularly horrible. I might still let them post here, but most are economic conservatives too, so they will segregate out on their own.
Mr. Pence is awful. The anti-abortion crowd makes me sick. I don’t like discrimination against homosexuals or transgenders. Most of these fundies are very hateful people, and they assume the worst about everyone because they are concrete thinkers. They’re frankly full of hate. They and I simply do not get along, mostly because they think I am an immoral scum. Plus most of them think liberals are evil and should be killed. This is one of the nastiest forms of stupid religion out there. It’s not as bad as fundamentalist Islam, but it’s up there.
It’s probably better described as just stupid than any other adjective, but as I pointed out in another post, people who engage in a lot of stupid, illogical thinking are often hateful and support a lot of unpleasant projects.
These fundies have a very bizarre opinion about Catholics which borders on the delusional. Their opinion about Catholics is false and highly illogical. They typically state that Catholics are not Christians. This is simply false. Catholics are the original Christians! For 1,500 years, Catholics were the only Christians on this planet. I was going to a heavily Hispanic Catholic church here in town for a while, and they were so much better than those fundie Protestants, it was not even funny.
I simply do not think I could get along with someone like that. It’s just not going to work, sorry. Sooner or later they will start calling me evil, and I don’t appreciate that.
My mother goes to a mainline Protestant church (Methodist), and I am OK with that.

Patriotardism

Patriotards can probably post here, but almost all of them are also economic conservatives, so they are going to self-segregate out like the religious folks.
American Patriotardism is just dumb. It’s based on this very stupid idea that there is something inherently good about America, it’s culture, its history, its politics, its military and its foreign policy.
There is nothing inherently good about the United States! Or any other country for that matter. For Chrissake. A nation is only as good as its leaders. And no culture is inherently good. Good cultures can go bad and bad cultures can go good in a heartbeat.
These Patriotards people also believe in “My country, right or wrong!” This is Patriotardism. It’s stupid! If my country is wrong, I am going to oppose it, dammit! If I dislike the culture, I will oppose that culture and work to change it. If the politics blows, I will dislike the politics and work to evolve a better politics. If the government is crap, I will hate the state and try to throw that group out and put in a better group. If my nation’s history is bad, I will admit it, regret our bad behavior and work towards changing my country’s behavior so my descendants do not have to apologize for our awful behavior.
There is nothing inherently good about the US military! I assure you. A military is only as good as its generals and civilian leadership. If those are terrible, they will give orders for the military to do some pretty bad things. US soldiers are not inherently good! They are as good as their generals and civilian leadership. If they are given lousy missions to carry out, US soldiers may very well end up doing a lot of bad things. And this has been the case in recent history. A soldier is like an automaton, a robot. He simply does what he is told to do.
Many nations have had decent militaries that turned monstrous and vice versa in history. It could and actually has happened here. We were on the side of good in World War 2, I will admit it, but in Vietnam or Iraq. It is idiocy to support every war your country wages in the name of “support the troops”! If the soldiers have been given a malign mission to carry out, as in Iraq, they should not be supported!
The war must be opposed on the grounds that it was of malign intent, and the soldiers should be supported in the sense of getting them out of that wicked war where they will be killed and injured for an evil cause. The best way of all to support the troops is to keep them from getting killed! I cannot think of a better way to support the troops than to call for an end to a diabolical and nasty war with a malign agenda.
There is indeed an ideology behind the US military. The Pentagon is not a non-ideological institution. Having studied Pentagon ideology for a long time, I assure you that the ideology of the US military is not good at all. Actually it is quite bad. Therefore, the US military must not be supported in its bad objectives. And its ideology needs to be changed to support positive and decent objectives instead of nasty and vicious ones.
Hatred of immigrants simply for being immigrants is just morally wrong. And it is caused by stupid thinking. Of course an immigrant is a real American. If he has become naturalized and is a US citizen, I say, “Welcome to my country, my fellow American!” I actually say this to some immigrants who have become citizens. I am happy that they have come to my country and liked it enough to become a citizen alongside me! Many of them also like the better things about our culture that were not present in their nation, though we are approaching the banana republic and tinpot dictatorship and generally awful politics and even culture of the Third World ourselves now with our recent descent into fascism.
Why hate a legal immigrant just for being an immigrant? They did it legally and fair and square. They stood in line and often waited for quite a few years. My ancestors were immigrants too. They came from Europe. Why were those immigrants ok but these new ones not ok? Why were my ancestors real Americans but recent Americans are not real Americans? That sounds like lousy, stupid thinking. It seems to fail a number of logic tests on its surface. This is simply emotionally driven, petty, irrational and hateful prejudice. It is a stupid and illogical thinking style that is also harmful to many innocent human beings. It’s pretty disgusting.

About Those "Jobs Americans Won't Do"

William writes:

Robert- the point was, and I believe you said this, that the notion of “There are no Jobs White men won’t do”, is not universal.
It’s a job, nonetheless. It verifies the “Mainstream Left” notion that illegals are doing the jobs the Whites won’t do TO AN EXTENT. It’s not universally true, of course, rather, it’s probably more often false than not true.

We don’t need these illegals for anything at all in my opinion. And if you cannot find Americans to do the job, I suppose you can always import some guest workers.
I am curious about that chicken plant story though. If they upped the wage to $17-18/hour, do you think some Whites or even legal Hispanics might have bitten the bait? They were probably offering $8 an hour to work in the chicken plant.
A lot of these places who “cannot find Americans” are just lying, as TJF points out. Silicon Valley screams that there are massive openings for programmers, and they demand more and more Hindu 1-B’s every year, but as TJF and many others have pointed out, the only reason they have a labor shortage is because they refuse to hire Americans.
Where I lived in the mountains, there were no jobs that White people would not do because all there were White people. No other races. There were some Indians, but they don’t work anyway. However, some of the older Indians worked at jobs like logger.
Whites were trashmen, dishwashers, roofers, painters, landscapers, construction workers, janitors, domestics (maids), you name it. My understanding is that these are all supposedly “jobs Whites won’t do.” But that’s a lie.
I now live in the Valley, and we do not need illegals for one damn thing out here.
Field work. Mostly done by legal immigrants and native born Hispanics. Yes, native-born Mexicans will work out in the fields. Actually I know some former bad boy gang associates/jailbirds/felons formerly headed in the wrong direction big time who are now working in the fields. It’s not uncommon for former Hispanic gang members to work in the fields. The work is a bit tiring, but it’s not really a bad job. It is just a hard physical job like construction or anything else.
The farmers are always screaming for more and more illegals and crying labor shortage, but it’s pretty much a lie. The UFW has pointed out that there is no labor shortage in the fields except that a lot of farmers refuse to hire workers who are members of the UFW union. The farmers are instead are looking for nonunion illegal aliens they can exploit the Hell out of.
There are illegals out there in the fields too, but they work right alongside native born Hispanics and Hispanic legal immigrants. A lot of the Mexican-Americans work in the fields because this is what they have always done.
Illegals have now taken over many of the jobs here, but they also work alongside native born Hispanics. They are doing the same jobs that the Whites were doing up in the mountains. I can’t think of any of those jobs that we would need illegals for because the native born Hispanics will gladly do all that work.
There are some packing plants in other areas around here. That might be sort of a nasty job, but I am sure that native born Hispanics would gladly work there. They will work just about anywhere. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are not that particular when it comes to work.

"Picking Blueberries Isn’t What It Used to Be," by Alpha Unit

People from Washington County, Maine, which borders the Canadian province of New Brunswick, will readily tell you about the natural beauty of the area – and about how friendly and hardworking the people are. But some of them will also tell you not to move there unless you don’t need to work.

Maine’s six “Rim Counties,” the rural counties just south of the Canadian border, are among the poorest counties in New England. Washington County has more unemployment and poverty than the rest. Paul Constant, who hails from Maine, says that the popular conception of Maine as nothing but lighthouses and lobsters is far from the truth. Once you get away from the relatively affluent parts of southern Maine, you see how tough it can really be to live there.

But Washington County, the poorest part of Maine, is special. It is the wild blueberry capital of the world.

Maine has 44,000 acres of wild blueberries that bring in about $250 million in annual revenue. Cultivated blueberries from other states dwarf the production of wild blueberries that grow on Washington County’s “barrens,” says Philip Conkling. These areas got their name because only blueberries and a few other plants could grow on the sandy soils left by the receding glacier. A spokeswoman for the Maine Wild Blueberry Commission told him that Maine grows a very special product but most people don’t know the difference between a wild blueberry and a cultivated one.

Philip Conkling offers a hint: the fat watery ones with less flavor are the cultivated ones.

In the summer of 1974 Conkling jumped at the chance to make some money raking blueberries at the Deblois barrens in Washington County, as part of a crew assembled by some neighbors who also owned blueberry land. He says that the wild blueberry harvest was the one time of year when just about anyone between six and 60 could earn a small pile of cash “to spend like a grasshopper or save for the coming winter.”

One week later I was in the back of Ralph Jr.’s two-ton, stake-body truck with a motley crew of neighbors, lurching off Highway 193 onto dirt roads that curved around endless vistas of blueberry fields on the barrens. When we stopped, Ralph handed me a bucket and a blueberry rake. He explained that when I had filled my bucket, I was to bring it over to a hand-cranked winnowing machine to separate the leaves and stems from the berries and then pour the berries carefully into wooden boxes. For this, I would make $2.50 a box. Seemed simple enough.

It turned out to be back-breaking work.

For generations most of the laborers in the blueberry fields were Native Americans, from the local Passamaquoddy tribe and Mi’kmaq from Canada. But with the expansion of the industry, blueberry farmers started hiring migrant workers to increase their labor force. Since the 1960s the harvest has been picked mainly by migrants, most of whom are Mexican, Mexican-American, Filipino-American, Jamaican, Haitian, Honduran, and Guatemalan. They work alongside Passamaquoddy and Mi’kmaq families.

Still, there are fewer migrant laborers in the barrens than there used to be. Since the 1990s growers have been using mechanical harvesters. Some blueberry operations are almost completely mechanized, and others are planning to make the transition. These machines can harvest about 10 times what a typical person can harvest with a hand-held blueberry rake.
Some analysts say that mechanization is the consequence of uncertainty over immigration reform. Without any long-term clarity on what the law will be, growers can’t easily plan for even five years ahead.

What about hiring native Mainers to replace migrant workers? Not really an option, according to some growers.

“There are people who say if we just paid more, Americans would do the work. But that’s a joke,” said Ed Flanagan, president of Jasper Wyman & Son Inc., Maine’s second-largest blueberry grower. Flanagan says hard-working pickers make as much as $20 an hour here, almost three times Maine’s minimum wage of $7.50.

Even though Washington County has high unemployment, the seasonal jobs in the blueberry fields find few takers among local residents.

Another grower works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make sure its seasonal staff are in the US legally, but a spokesman says every year it’s a gamble. “You never know if enough people are going to show up to get the job done,” he says.

Allow 8-10,000 Muslim Immigrants into the US Every Year

I would support allowing 8-10,000 Muslim immigrants into the country every year. The reason is that we let in 1 million immigrants per year. Muslims are now only .8% of the population. If we let in 8,000 Muslims per year, then the Muslim population will not grow, as we are only letting in Muslims as a precise percentage of their already existing population.

The main issue with Muslims in my opinion is to not increase the population in the US. In other words, going from .8% Muslims to 2% Muslims would be a bad idea. Going from .8% Muslims to 5% Muslims would be much more of a problem along the lines of what a number of West European countries are experiencing now. If the Muslim population stays at .8%, then letting 10,000 Muslim in a year will not budge that figure one bit. They will remain ~1% forever at that rate.

On the other hand, their population could grow due to a high birth rate. But once again, the issue with Muslim immigration is that Muslim immigration in and of itself should not increase the % of the population that is Muslim in the US. As long as Muslim immigration is low enough that it is not increasing the Muslim population as as % of the whole, then Muslim immigration is not a problem.

More Lies about Cuba: The Cuban Dissidents Have Mass Support

Santo Culto writes:

The idea that the dissidents are hated by the people who remained in Cuba, and that you Lindsay, can believe it, shows that many of these ”high Iq’s” seem to have serious problems of perception. Most dissidents have relatives who remained in Cuba. It’s almost like saying that the dissidents were hated in the former East Germany. Are not you ashamed to say such nonsense *

Even though many of Cuban dissidents were hated by (most, many, a lot of) ”Cubans” still would not be proof that Cuba is a good place.

Well, I’ll keep waiting for your answer as the government of Dilma Roussef, the ”presidenta”.

Lindsay, in which social class that fits you **

What you have done for the welfare of beings (human or otherwise) who are in need of help from others ** (if the answer is: ”I am rich” or ”I’m from upper middle class’ )

Speaking of the dissidents in Florida, most Cubans call them “gusanos.” Gusano means worm.  So most Cubans call the Miami exiles dissidents “worms.” They are said to all be working for the CIA to overthrow the system and hand the island back over the US to it can colonize, rape and ruin it again. Most of the big-name dissidents no longer have family in Cuba, and most of the people in Florida with relatives on the island are not hardcore dissidents.

In Cuba, almost everyone complains about the system. But the dissidents in Cuba have almost no support. Cuba had a popular revolution, and most of the people who hated it took off early on. The rest either liked the system or were born and grew up in it, and that’s all they know.

Anyone who studies Cuba at length knows that the dissidents in Cuba have almost no support and the ones in Florida are hated with a passion. Nobody likes them, and nobody wants them. The ones on the island are seen as spies and traitors who work for the US Interest Section, and that is exactly what most of them do.

Sure, a lot of people are not happy with quite a few aspects of the system, and there is quite a bit to complain about. But things have gotten dramatically better in Cuba in the past few years, and there is a lot less to complain about.

Yes people complain a lot and a lot of people want changes in the system. At the same time, almost everyone hates the dissident groups on the island who are seen as traitors who want to turn Cuba over to the hated Americans. And  probably the majority of Cubans are absolutely terrified of free market laissez-faire neoliberal capitalism and want nothing to do with it. They would rather keep the current system and make it work better.

The government probably has majority support now, and all Cubans on the island love Fidel Castro, who is seen as a national hero.

Some Cubans who have important jobs such as physicians are not allowed to leave the island because the state spent so much money educating them. You can’t take all that money from the state to get educated and then just take off for the West. At the very least you should be made to pay back th cost of your education.

There has been an “Orderly Departure Program” in Cuba that enables people to leave the island for many years. But you have to wait in line for six months to get out, and the 20,000 visas for going to the US are filled almost immediately.

Almost all Cubans who want to leave want to go to the US. Nowadays they are almost all economic refugees, and few are fleeing persecution. It is interesting that Cubans only want to go to the US, and almost none of them want to go to any of the “capitalist paradises” in Latin America. A lot also want to go to Spain, but once they get to Spain, life is usually not every good for whatever reason, and most of the Cuban exiles in Spain would just as soon go home.

Those morons who get on flimsy boats to go the US are not doing so because they were not allowed to leave. They are doing so because the 20,000 Visas for the US filled up very quickly, and they still want to go to the US anyway. As there is no legal way to go to the US that year, they have to hop on a raft. Our insane policy says that every Cuban who lands on US shores has to be taken in immediately even though they are obviously illegal immigrants. So they know they will get in if they make it to the shore, there are no more legal slots to get into the US, and they don’t want to go to any of the capitalist paradises in Latin America. That’s why you have all of these morons on rafts.

People say that no one wants to go to Cuba. This is not true. I understand that in recent years, many illegal immigrants from Jamaica and Haiti and have landed in eastern Cuba after sailing on rafts. Cuba took them all in even though they were illegals. 100% of the people who fled the capitalist paradises of Haiti and Jamaica for Cuba say that Cuba is a much better place to live.

Furthermore, name one Latin American country other than Argentina and Costa Rica that has a significant illegal immigrant problem. There are none. There are no capitalist paradises in Latin America that are so groovy that floods of immigrants want to go live in them for an improved life. So maybe few want to move to Cuba, but nobody wants to move to any other country in Latin America for a better life either.

Obama May Be Set for Massive Amnesty

Here.
The horrifying Senate bill, a bipartisan adventure passed with both Republican and Democratic support, promises to do as bad or even worse. Up to 8 million illegal alien criminal invaders of our land could be granted work permits to obtain jobs in order to steal from from Native Born American People (NBAP) and up the unemployment rate about the NBAP’s.
This lunatic bill actually doubles are already insane numbers of legal immigrants allowed to flood our shore.
It also doubles the usually fake guest worker immigrants, who are mostly fraudulent cases, most notably Hindu 1-B job thieves who have utterly destroyed NBAP (mostly White) programmer labor market in the US. We Americans have ruined one of our finest talent pools – the White computer programmers – and replaced them with largely inferior and incompetent Hindu 1-B’s from fake, lying, cheating, fraudulent diploma mill “universities” in India.
A very large percentage of Hindu 1-B’s have completely fake resumes, which employers never bother to check as they assume that if it’s a Hindu 1-B, they are obviously using a fraudulent resume. Usually these elephant jockeys say they have a Master’s Degree in Computer Programming. In most all cases, they certainly do not. For instance, at the largest Indian organized crime diploma mills, a “Master’s Degree in Computer Science” can be obtained in a mere six months of study out of high school. Fake! Generally these are for-profit colleges, and for-profit universities are pretty much garbage everywhere on Earth. This is such a hard and fast rule of education that it is nearly on the level of a mathematical corollary.
The Hindu 1-B criminals form ethnic gangs at all of the places where they work. Soon a Hindu 1-B ethnic gangster is put in charge of Human Resources of Management. He quickly fires all White programmers under him and replaces them with his countrymen. Nepotism at an extreme level. Further, the Indians are engaging in blatant job discrimination that is nearly on a Jim Crow level. Yet such is the hatred for NBAP, especially Native Born American White Men, among our elites, that our elites gladly sell out their own people and their own homeland by siding with a group of vicious, bigoted, discriminatory and incompetent invaders of our shores.
This war isn’t really natives versus immigrants, it’s Americans versus Americans. On one side, we have the country-sellers, the traitors. The higher echelons and nearly all elected officials of both parties, Republican and Democrat, are largely made up of extremely unpatriotic Americans. These are the country-sellers, the sellers of the homeland, the traitors to their own people and their own land.
It’s often said that I am a traitor, but that is not true. I simply want the best for my country, which makes me much more of a patriot than any elected official in this country. Mass immigration is a catastrophe for my homeland and my people, so I oppose it with every fiber of my being. I am an American nationalist. What we hate more than anything are the country-sellers, the traitors to our great NBAP who built this fine land.
Our elites are now citizens of the world. They long ago revoked their right to citizenship by their treasonous behavior. They have no loyalty to the homeland, and they would sell it down the river in a New York minute, as they prove every day of the year.
If this law passes, or worse if Obama makes an executive action legalizing 8 billion illegal alien criminals who invaded our sovereign land, he will surely go down in history as one of the most treasonous Presidents who ever blighted our great land. Let’s hope, for the sake of all of us, that he doesn’t do it.
I must say that on the issue of illegal immigration, I am with the hardline members of the Republican Party and especially with the Tea Party. Of course I dislike them on most other things, but I will ally with Tea Party folks on this issue, the defense of the homeland against the country-selling traitors.

Ex-Army on Mass Immigration

Ex-Army has a new post up reprinting one of my posts and putting up one of his own. Here it is:

Despite what they say, just about the entire political class is in favor of amnesty first of all, and then more and more and more immigration, legal and illegal. And you can extend that to the whole MAG (Media, Academia, Government). Now, they all want it for their own grubby little reasons, but they all say it will just improve the bejeezus out of the economy and everything else, to have unlimited hordes of uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants pouring in over the border.
It seems that even an idiot could figure out that when you have an oversupply of a commodity (unskilled labor), the price (wages) of that commodity falls. When it falls far enough, unskilled Americans can’t afford to take the unskilled jobs, because they can get more money from welfare, so that’s what they do, and they get zero work experience, and stay unemployable forever.
Then the immigrants catch on to the deal, they go on welfare, and then we need to let a few million more uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants in, and the cycle continues. Make no mistake about it, people. If you are a worker, or would like to be a worker, amnesty is going to hike your taxes and cut your pay.
The left, of course, couldn’t care less about actual working people. They think of them as a bunch of nasty Archie Bunkers who ought to lose their stupid jobs. Serve ’em right. Racist bigots.

There are some problems with this at it is typical of the contempt that US conservatives have for liberals, who according to them are just bad people with bad motives. But that’s where the Right goes wrong. US liberals are not bad people with bad motives. They are good people with good motives. They are “do-gooders.” Now, the Right can feel free to bash do-gooders all they want to, but after all, in doing so, they are displaying contempt for people for trying to do the right thing.

Despite what they say, just about the entire political class is in favor of amnesty first of all, and then more and more and more immigration, legal and illegal. And you can extend that to the whole MAG (Media, Academia, Government). Now, they all want it for their own grubby little reasons,

This is not exactly true. The entire US political class it not in favor of amnesty. They entire US Democratic Party is. The Republican Party is divided. Before, they were against amnesty, and it is in this way that I am a conservative, as I am against amnesty. The Republican Party is under extreme pressure to cave in on amnesty, and it is only the hardliners such as the Tea Partiers that are holding the line on this issue, but it keeps coming back like a whack a mole. The political class of the Republican Party is now 100% down with amnesty, and that’s why the monster keeps rearing its head over and over. Tragically, it is only the awful Tea Partiers that are saving the nation from this catastrophe.
Ex-Army is correct that the entire media class is pro-amnesty. Why this is is uncertain. Most reporters are liberals, and many are Jewish. Many newspapers are owned by Jews who have ethnic reasons for supporting mass immigration. Most other newspapers are simply owned by corporations who support mass immigration because of the wage-lowering and more consumers = more business effects.
Academia supports mass immigration because they are liberal do-gooders. They really believe that the whole world has a right to come here to better their lives and that it is cruel to keep them out. They have blinded themselves to the massive downside that this will have for us as a nation because they want to think of their causes are pure good causes that will not have any downside.

but they all say it will just improve the bejeezus out of the economy and everything else, to have unlimited hordes of uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants pouring in over the border. It seems that even an idiot could figure out that when you have an oversupply of a commodity (unskilled labor), the price (wages) of that commodity falls.

It is true that both the Left and the Right all insist that mass immigration is the greatest thing for the economy since sliced bread. This is probably due to the more consumers = more business line.
However, something that is good for the economy is not necessarily good for labor. Obviously, mass importation of unskilled labor lowers the cost of that labor and ultimately depresses wages. We have seen it right here on the ground in California, and I don’t care how many lying studies they produce to show that mass immigration does not lower wages, we here in California know firsthand that it does.
The Right is overjoyed that mass immigration lowers wages. The Left simply denies that it does as that would go against their ideology, and they blind themselves to the downside of their projects for ego-defensive needs. Do-gooders can’t exactly be pushing things that have bad effects. Then they would not be do-gooders anymore. Instead they would be do-badders. In order to protect the ego from this attack, they deny that their agenda has bad effects.

When it falls far enough, unskilled Americans can’t afford to take the unskilled jobs, because they can get more money from welfare, so that’s what they do, and they get zero work experience, and stay unemployable forever.

The Right is obsessed with welfare. That’s what they are all about. All they talk about all day and all night is welfare. Which is a good reason for the Left to never discuss it at all. Discussing it at all makes you a rightwinger. The truth is that it does not pay more in the US to “go on welfare” than it does to work.
In some highly advanced welfare states such as Britain, under certain circumstances it did, especially if you were a single Mom raising kids as you got a child allowance. Get your kids on disability and into government housing, and you’re in like Flynn.
I knew a woman who was scamming the British system in order to stay home and raise her kids, who by now were teenagers. She flat out told me that in she was working the system to the extent that she would lose money if she went to work. We should design welfare states so that you always make more money if you go to work than if you stay on relief. That’s the only way a welfare state makes any kind of sense.
In the US, it’s never more profitable to “go on welfare” than it is to work. Forget it. First of all, in the US, you can’t just “go on welfare.” If you lose your job, you might get unemployment, but it’s a pittance, and it doesn’t last long. That’s all you get. You might be able to get some Food Stamps, but I don’t know anyone who refuses to work because the Food Stamps might end.
You can stand in line and wait for 2-3 years for Section 8 to open up, but I don’t know anyone who refuses to work because they will lose their Section 8. The system is designed to reward you for working. If your income falls low enough, you can get Medicaid, but I don’t know anyone who refuses to work because they won’t get Medicaid anymore.
If you don’t work, you can’t eat, pay your bills, drive your car, buy anything or pay your rent. If you don’t work in the US, you can’t survive, period, so everyone pretty much has to work at something. You can go on disability, but this is very hard, and if there is nothing wrong with you, you won’t get it. Even if there is something wrong with you, you will get turned down over and over before you get accepted. Then everyone will hate you for being on disability.
You always make more money working than being on disability. I do know people who stay on disability rather than work because if they go off, they lose their medical coverage, which is either Medicaid or Medicare. The problem is that there is no national health care system in the US due to conservative opposition. So the conservatives have created this problem for themselves. But the truth is that you can’t survive on disability even if you are really disabled as it pays so little. It doesn’t even pay enough to survive to be honest. No one is living it up on disability. Most are grubbing by in a very depressing existence at a near sub-survival level.
Many are working a bit on the side to supplement the disability, but most of them are not really capable of working fulltime anyway. Even those who stay on disability due to fears of losing medical care are not really capable of working as I see it. Most would not be hired by anyone, and if they were, they would soon be fired.

so that’s what they do, and they get zero work experience, and stay unemployable forever.

The number of people in the US that unemployable due to no work experience is very low. I have honestly never met one in my entire life. I know a person who was on disability for mental stuff, and they had never really worked. At one time, they got much better, and they got a job. They got fired after a few months, which is typical for people on disability for mental stuff, and then they deteriorated and apparently decided never to do that again. But they had landed a good government job even with no work experience because they had a university degree.
The Right loves to talk about “unemployable” people. Perhaps there are unemployable Americans. I haven’t the faintest idea. But I am not sure if I have ever met one, and most that I did meet were already collecting disability. The unemployable Americans due to no work experience must be very small in number.

Then the immigrants catch on to the deal, they go on welfare, and then we need to let a few million more uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants in, and the cycle continues.

This is not true. Immigrants to the US do not “go on welfare.” They are banned from most social programs as it is, since they only take citizens. Most legal immigrants also don’t “go on welfare.” I have never met a single immigrant, legal or illegal, who was on any kind of welfare program of any type.
Most immigrants to the US have a very strong work ethic, often stronger than Americans. It is an endless rightwing trope that illegal aliens flood into the US “to go on welfare.” Go to any conservative anti-illegal website, and this is all they talk about. “They come here for the welfare!” And it’s the biggest lie on Earth. The number of illegal aliens who come to the US “to go on welfare” must by vanishingly small. First of all, that would be a very stupid reason to come to the US since illegals are not eligible for any programs, and those they are eligible for through their kids don’t even pay the bills.
It is certainly not true that millions of illegals “go on welfare” creating a labor shortage, necessitating importation of more illegals. The only way this is somewhat true is that if if you legalize illegals, many of them don’t want to work in the fields anymore, so you need to import more illegals to work in the fields. But it is simply not true that there is a labor shortage in US fields. I live in the biggest agricultural region in the US, and there is no farm worker labor shortage here. In fact, farm worker unemployment is around 15% at any given time as the work is seasonal.
Certainly there is no need for mass immigration to combat labor shortages. These labor shortages do not exist in the US and exist only in the lying mouths of US businessmen, particularly farmers and owners of high tech companies and their lying lackeys in media and politics. The fake labor shortages are constantly conjured up by US capitalists in order to import more immigrants and guest workers to drive down wages even further.

Make no mistake about it, people. If you are a worker, or would like to be a worker, amnesty is going to hike your taxes and cut your pay.

He is correct that mass immigration will cut your pay if you are worker, but probably only if you are a low skilled worker. Some workers such as tech workers are also being impacted. However, it will not raise your taxes. Conservatives like to say that everything on God’s green Earth is going to “raise your taxes.”
Lately, the Democratic Party has gotten in on it too, claiming that some rightwing projects are going to “raise your taxes.” This is stupid. Liberals should not be decrying anything that raises taxes. If you are a liberal and you bemoan things that are going to “raise your taxes” you’re not a liberal anymore. Liberals support taxes. We love taxation. We can’t get enough of it. Taxes in the US are far too low and need to be vastly increased, mostly on the rich and the corporations.
The truth is that almost no political project is going to “raise your taxes.” National health care would probably necessitate some sort of a tax increase, but it is uncertain how that would work out. Most projects that increase the size and scope of government functions need to be paid for in some way or another. Mass immigration does increase the costs to government as the immigrants cost more than they produce in taxation to pay for themselves. Immigrants simply don’t pay for themselves; they cost money.
The increased costs will probably just be dealt with by cutting more and more services and running up bigger and bigger deficits as raising taxes is a political death wish anymore. Bottom line is that illegals or mass immigration in general does not really raise your taxes. Instead they increase the costs of government, leading to large deficits and major cutbacks in state services.

The left, of course, couldn’t care less about actual working people. They think of them as a bunch of nasty Archie Bunkers who ought to lose their stupid jobs. Serve ’em right. Racist bigots.

This probably isn’t true. In my whole life I might have met one White leftist who felt this way. Your average middle class liberal likes proles about as much as rightwingers do. Like or dislike of the working class is a class issue, not a politics issue. Both rightwing and liberal middle class types don’t really care to hang out with proles all that much, as they both think they are low class.
But the only people I have ever met who had utter contempt for low wage workers were all rightwingers, and most of them were young men. It is hard to find a liberal who expresses contempt for working class people. I am not even sure that they exist.
Some of the rich have contempt for working class people, but those are mostly young rich males. Contempt for proles does not seem to be acceptable in US culture. As one moves further to the Left, you will find more sympathy for proles, so support for proles and working class people is actually a function of politics in a sense in that it is almost a requirement for being a true liberal or Leftist. There are liberals who are fairly rightwing for a liberal who are dubious about “the workers and peasants.” But they came from an upper class background, and they were not that liberal anyway. As they moved further to the Left with time, their support for and comfort with proles increased.
The problem is that most of the Right’s rhetoric is simply untrue. Most of their talking points are frankly falsehoods, but they are things that conservatives want to believe, as they want to believe that the world actually works in the twisted way that their vision says it does.
They don’t want to confront reality either. No one does, not the Left, not the Right, really nobody. It is much more comfortable to lie about the world than to see it for what it really is. When you see the world in realis, most of the ideology that you have carefully constructed over a lifetime is stripped bare and revealed to be either lies or nonsense, mostly set up to make you feel good about the world or your view of it in some way. Revealing your lifelong biases as a pack of lies is very painful, and most people just do not want to confront that monster, so they content themselves on comfortable illusions.

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).

"Canada At Ground Level: Observations of a US Refugee," by Odin Crow

Warning: Long, runs to 51 pages. This is a fine piece by US expat Odin Crow. Relax and enjoy it.

Canada At Ground Level: Observations of a US Refugee

By Odin Crow

I am an American citizen living in Canada. I am not a sociologist, anthropologist, economist, linguist or any other ist. What I am is a middle class, late 40s working-guy who wishes to share with you what he’s learned about his adopted country from his own personal experiences and hopefully dispel a few misconceptions at the same time. But first, my take on the differences in basic character of these two countries and how they came about.

A Tale Of Two Siblings

If Canada and the US were brothers, the US was the one who said “fuck you” to the parents and left home as a teen. Granted, mom and dad were treating him like shit; he was a breadwinner, the loud, risk-taking one with big plans and ambitions and, to be honest, mom and dad were oinking up the fruits of his labors without giving him any say in how the household was run.
Sure, mom and dad got him started, set him up with everything he needed to be successful, but the dynamic didn’t seem fair to Elder Brother, who went indy.
Canada, on the other hand was the brother who just wanted to live his life and be left alone. He didn’t ask for much from mom and dad; they gave him very little to work with and neglected him for the most part. But Younger Brother never complained and did receive the benefit of some guidance and wisdom from time to time as he grew up as well as help when he really needed it.
So Younger Brother kept his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, minded his own business and slowly built a nice sane, stable life for himself.
Meanwhile, after a nasty spat with the folks, who started it out of sheer vindictiveness (and whose side was taken by Younger Brother, since Elder Brother lashed out at him and, to be honest, Younger Brother was still basically an extension of Mom and Dad) Elder Brother built a dizzyingly dramatic, risk-taking, get-the-fuck-outta-my-way life for himself, with stellar highs and deep, abysmal lows, being sometimes unbelievably heroic and idealistic and sometimes bewilderingly selfish, paranoid and self-righteous.
Over time, though, both siblings and parents’ relationship evolved into one of general support and respect, coming to each other’s aid, engaging in great endeavors and providing moral support to one another, even though one or more of them may not always have clearly been on the side of right.
So if the US is the “loud” one, the flashy, big-talking Type A, the stunning over-achiever who makes everyone else in the room feel inadequate (or at least tries to), the one who’s been out in the world reaping fame and glory, constantly striving always to grow his own wealth, power and influence, Canada’s the one that dresses down, doesn’t dominate the conversation at the dinner table, has his mortgage paid off and worries more about just being a good neighbor and minding his own business.
He’s the one who, through patience and consistency, has built himself a very comfortable, stable, relaxed life, and people generally find his company enjoyable. Others generally have mixed feelings towards Older Brother, being sometimes jealous of him, sometimes afraid and very often both. Older Brother wants everyone to be like him and feels the need to justify his choices constantly; Younger Brother’s the one who goes, “No thanks, I’m good, but whatever works for you.”

How I Got Here

I married a Canadian woman, it didn’t work out, and I stayed. I had applied for permanent residence with my wife as my sponsor, which involved paying around $900, submitting a criminal background check and medical examination, filling out a form and waiting seven months. During the interim, I was not allowed to work legally or receive any public services.
Once my application passed, I received my “landing papers”, a SIN (Social Insurance Number or Canadian SSN) and was then eligible to live permanently, work and receive health care. My status lasts 5 years between renewals, during which I must spend a minimum of 2 years on Canadian soil or abroad as an employee for a Canadian company. I cannot vote or serve in the military.
If I had applied for public assistance (welfare, etc) during my first 3 years, my sponsor (ex-wife) would have been responsible for paying it back to the government. I can and have received unemployment insurance.

What It’s Like To Be a Working Guy in Canada

I have no college degree and am actually a high-school dropout, though I’ve always lied about it, and it’s never been questioned (fortunately, they didn’t check on that in my residency application). I live in Alberta now, so I don’t pay provincial income tax.
Regardless, when I was in Nova Scotia, I still took home more of my wages than I did in California, despite paying both federal and provincial income tax. Canadian tax rates are lower for lower incomes, higher for higher incomes. If I were to make 100 grand a year, yes, I’d pay a higher tax rate, but I don’t.
The Canadian and US Dollars hover around parity for the most part, so for all intents and purposes, a buck is a buck. My cost of living is about the same as in the US. Rents are comparable and so are utilities.
Food can be more expensive, and smokes are over 10 bucks a pack for most brands in Alberta and more in some other places; the more liberal, the more expensive – same with booze. Gas is currently about $CN 1.12/liter., ($4.20/gallon.) in Alberta, which has the lowest gas prices in the country, naturally. It’s as much as $CN .50 more a liter in other places.
Canada has a federal sales tax of 5% known as the General Sales Tax (GST). Each province can add to that their own sales tax, the combined sales taxes being called a Harmonised Sales tax (HST). This can vary widely from province to province depending on their social leanings and economy.
Nova Scotia, being a notoriously liberal and socially-conscious province with higher unemployment than the national average, has a HST of 15%; the idea is that when more people are unemployed, social services and support become even more critical to maintaining quality of life.
Alberta, which is shoveling in oil revenues like there’s no tomorrow and has a thriving agricultural industry (grain and cattle) is probably the least socially-conscious of all the provinces, being somewhat the Canadian version of Texas. It has no HST, only the 5% GST.
So, in short, I’ve sort of made a deal with the devil by coming out here for work after having been laid off in Nova Scotia; I enjoy the economic benefits, but am slightly at odds with the social climate which is, to be fair, still more liberal than that of the US as a whole.
Here’s an example of the difference between the IRS and Revenue Canada: I get a check every 3 months for $CN 100 as a GST rebate because I make below a certain income level (I gross between  $CN 38k-45k/year). When was the last time you ever got anything from the IRS aside from something terrifying telling you you’re fucked?
Summary: Being an average, middle-class working person in Canada means you can actually have a good, comfortable life.

Health Care

If you live here, either as a citizen, on a visa or as a permanent resident, like myself, you get health care. Each province administers its own system, and it comes out of the tax base; there is no premium deduction from your pay, no check box on your tax return form. I hear Alberta (surprise, surprise) used to have a mandatory premium deducted from your tax return each year, but not any more.
Your provincial health card will get you care no matter where in the country you are. Emergency room, ambulances – no charge to the insured. Neither dental nor optometry are covered, and seeing a specialist requires a referral. My employers provide me with health insurance for things like optometry, dental, chiro, prescription plan, etc, as does everyone else’s, to my knowledge.
But if you’re a small business, one less burden of responsibility and concern has been removed. Even if you’re a cheap, mean bastard who cuts corners every chance he gets, you and your employees are still covered.
Here’s how my Canadian doctor visits have gone:
Scenario 1
Receptionist: Hello, dear, have you been here before?
Me: No.
Receptionist: Can I see your card, dear? (I hand her the card). Is this your current address?
Me: Yes.
Receptionist: OK, here’s your card back, have a seat and someone will call your name in a couple minutes.
10 minutes later: Mr. **********?
Scenario 2
Receptionist: Hello, dear, have you been here before?
Me: Yes.
Receptionist: Your name?
Me: **********
Receptionist: Is this your current address?
Me: Yes.
Receptionist: OK, have a seat and someone will call your name in a couple minutes.
10 minutes later: Mr. **********?
This is not a fantasy; I am not exaggerating. No co-pay, no multi-page forms to fill out, no pissed off, fat, black bitch in teddy-bear scrubs studiously ignoring me as I wait for her attention, all-but-daring me to interrupt her personal phone call by meekly saying “Excuse me”, no interminable wait, nothing.
Now, I’m sure a clinic in a huge city like Toronto or Vancouver would probably be much busier (though nothing like the Cinco de Mayo fiestas of Southern California, I’m sure) and its staff more unpleasant (my experiences are limited to Halifax and my small Southern Alberta town of 2,000), but seriously, anyone who can compare this with an HMO experience in the US and see no difference is an abject boob.
My ex-wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer when she was 20. She had surgery, was treated, recovered fully and takes thyroid medication. Aside from the cost of the prescription, which was about 12 bucks a refill, her cost was zero. She had merely to show her Nova Scotia Health Card and her life was saved without any worries that she would face any complications when it came to receiving care or paying for it afterwards.
Summary: It is not a myth – the Canadian health care system works and it works very well. For everyone.

Politics

Quick primer on the parliamentary system:
Political parties elect a leader. General elections are for MP’s (Members of Parliament), the equivalent of House representatives in the US. Whoever gets the most MP’s in Parliament is the Majority – their leader becomes Prime Minister. You do not elect a Prime Minister, you elect a Party with whom you agree. As long as that party is in the majority, their leader is Prime Minister.
There is a Canadian Senate as well, but Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister – not elected – so they are all, inevitably, of the same party as the Majority (I’m sure there are a couple exceptions, but for the most part, who’s going to pick a guy from the Opposition?). I’m not clear what the Senate does, but I know that the lawmaking process is not bicameral.
The Majority party is the Progressive Conservatives (PC), colloquially known by the traditional English term “Tories”.
The Opposition are the Liberal Party (which held power for quite some time but has diminished in recent years due to lack of leadership), the New Democrats (which are the largest minority and surged suddenly in ranks at the last general election), the Green Party (a handful) and I think Bloc Quebecois still has a couple MP’s.
Bloc Quebecois is essentially an ethnocentric provincial party whose only real platform has been the secession of Quebec, and their place in national politics has been the subject of some contention; they have been, however, utterly decimated, many of their seats lost to the burgeoning ND Party in the last election.
There may be some stragglers from all-but-defunct other parties with a seat here or there, but I’m not sure and nor would be your average Canadian.
A Canadian Conservative is a lot closer to a US Democrat than it is to a US Republican. They are not trying to repeal universal health care, abortion rights, gay marriage or any of the other causes celebres of their Bizarro-World US counterparts. They object to things like making trans-gender public restrooms mandatory and legalizing pot and support things like privatizing government entities and easing up on business regulation, etc., for the most part.
Yes, PM Harper and his crew are trying to emulate some US Republican fashion trends, for example a “3-strikes, tough-on-crime” bill and building more prisons, but everybody’s response to that is generally, “Why? The crime rate is actually dropping.” Thanks to the Canadian Parliamentary system though, the MP’s are really not much more than what they should be, which is bureaucrats put in charge of keeping shit running smoothly, sanely and reliably.
Canadian politicians are also by-and-large not millionaires and lawyers as they are in the US. They come from a pretty wide demographic (a recently-elected ND MP from Quebec is actually a female bartender).
At the provincial level, Canada has Premiers instead of Governors (It always reminds me of some Communist Eastern European country when I hear that term – still doesn’t sound right to me). They attain office the same way as national PM’s: Parties field candidates as reps for the various provincial “ridings“, and the Party with the majority’s leader becomes Premier.
In Alberta, the Tories have maintained a hegemony over provincial politics for the last 40 years (PM Stephen Harper is an Albertan).
The current Premier, Allison Redford, was a constitutional attorney, a field of expertise rather uncommon amongst US Republican politicians, but not among Democratic Presidents it would seem.
Provinces sometimes have provincial political parties, limited to provincial politics, though Quebec’s Bloc Quebecois made its way into Parliament, concerned as they are with Quebec’s secession, though their position and influence in federal politics is marginal to say the least.
Alberta‘s further-right party, the Wild Rose Party, went balls-out during the last provincial election, and their gaffes were many and hilarious; one of their candidates mentioned in a mass emailing something about gays being “condemned to a lake of fire,” and another quipped that he would win his riding easily as he was the “only white guy“ on the ballot.
In true neocon fashion, the party responded not by asking either of the doddering farts to step down, but by making the statement that “there are many differing views within the Wild Rose Party, and all are tolerated.” Needless to say, they got their asses handed to them instead of winning a majority.
In Alberta, the Tories have been making noises about privatizing Alberta Health, giving the usual bullshit arguments about how the “private sector can deliver services more efficiently and cost-effectively than the provincial government can,” etc., but it’s not a position that seems to be gaining much traction with the electorate…..
To put it simply, Canadians are generally not stupid; they see what works with their own eyes, thus they are far less susceptible to specious arguments, panic-mongering and outright bullshit than their US counterparts. They know when something is working and aren’t obsessed with change for its own sake, not even Albertans.
Summary: Politics in Canada actually has more to do with working for the people than it does furthering ideological agendas or political careers.

Immigration and Race

Per the most recent census statistics, Canada is comprised of 80% Whites, 16.2% visible minorities and 3.8% Aboriginals.
One of the things I truly love about Canada is that there aren’t Mexicans all over the place. There are no undocumented aliens per se, since not only is Canada not conveniently within walking distance of Mexico, but an illegal alien isn’t able to get work or free medical care here. There are no mobs of day laborers in the Home Depot parking lot, nor have I seen massive, ethnically-homogenous ghettos in which an illegal can live and receive community support with impunity.
This may not be the case in the bigger cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, but the numbers of illegals must be so low as not to have much effect as a socioeconomic issue. Illegals aside, I don’t see Canada suffering the negative social and cultural impact of being overwhelmed by immigrants from one particular culture.
Canada has a policy of basing immigration approval upon needed skills. Since Canada is not suffering from a shortage of gardeners, pool cleaners or sidewalk ice-cream vendors, that would pretty much exclude the bulk of the Mexicans wanting to come in.
Canada has a foreign temporary worker program just like the US used to since there’s more work here than there are people who want to do it. A Newfoundland seafood processing plant that had shut down for awhile opened back up when the catches improved and couldn’t find enough locals for the jobs, so they imported a bunch of Thais along with an interpreter.
However, in most other circumstances, immigrants have to prove a functioning grasp of either English or French depending where they‘re going to be working and living. Children who cannot speak English are sent home by public schools, and the parents are informed that the school will be happy to teach their child once the parents have taught the child English.
Recently, the English requirement for citizenship was actually increased. Canada seems to feel, oddly enough, that two of the keys to properly managing immigration are ensuring that an individual not only can speak one of the official languages but that they can somehow contribute to the economy and society as a whole.
Absent giant ethnically-homogenous communities of immigrants, Canadian immigrants seem to assimilate much more quickly and willingly than in the US. Every first-generation-born Canadian I’ve met has no foreign accent; they say “eh”, and they seem to hang out with just about anybody.
I never get the vibe that foreigners and their kids here hate Canadians while enjoying the benefits of being Canadian. The mayor of Calgary, the biggest city in the most conservative province, is a Muslim – Naheed Nenshi – and you’d never know by hearing him speak on the radio. You see “people of color” scattered throughout the media and government, and they all seem to retain ethnic names, despite sounding and acting like Canadians.
Blacks in Canada are not ubiquitous. In Calgary, the Blacks I meet are invariably immigrants; there is no “Black” part of town.
In Halifax, which was, among other things, at the other end of the Underground Railroad, the Black population is mostly descended from former American slaves and is proportionally larger than in many other areas of the country.
This population in Halifax began in earnest following the War of 1812 during which “Black loyalists” (slaves willing to fight their masters in exchange for freedom) were deeded land on the outskirts of Halifax as reward for helping the Crown, which was named Africville.
Africville has a tragic and disappointing history which I’m going to expand upon in a separate piece, but suffice it to say that Blacks in Nova Scotia suffer from many of the same socioeconomic problems as do their counterparts in the US, though certainly not to the same degree.
I understand that there are Black communities in and around Toronto which are primarily Caribbean in origin, that there is public housing inhabited mostly by Blacks and that crime rates are higher in these areas, but I’m not aware of specifics.
I have never heard a Canadian say “nigger”. Oh, I’ve had friends say “What up, my nigga,” plenty of times, but as far as it being used as a pejorative, never. Much of what many Canadians believe about Blacks, since many of them have never spent much time around or lived around them, they get from US TV shows, so many of them are understandably scared shitless.
In Nova Scotia, where there is a Black population descended from American slaves and not immigrants, I often heard the general stereotypes bandied about by Whites: They don’t like to work, but they do like to commit crimes, do drugs, get bitches pregnant and split, etc.
My ex-wife was utterly petrified of them. She saw a Black kid walk down our street once and, since no Black people lived on our street, wanted to call the police, I shit you not. She did not, though, and the ensuing argument lasted about two hours.
Canadians are, however, very quick to characterize Americans as racists, despite the fact that Canada had Jim Crow “Whites only” bylaws in rural areas just like the US did. But, in fairness, the institution of slavery did not exist here, and that counts for rather a bit.
Aboriginals, still commonly referred to as Indians, seem to take the place, in many ways, that Blacks do in US society. They are disproportionately plagued by crime, poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction and prejudice and are distributed across Canada. They receive government assistance and are spoken of by most of the Whites I know as a “problem” and with little compassion. A disproportionate number of their males are in the prison system.
They are, in effect, the Blacks of Canada, and the origins of their problems are as convoluted and difficult to figure out as are those of US Blacks. However, to be real, they were doing OK before Whitey showed up.

The French

As you may or may not know, the English defeated the French in the battle for supremacy in Canada but allowed the French to stay and maintain their own culture. Like any defeated people, despite the magnanimity of the victors, a lot of them are still sore about it.
As I’ve mentioned before, there are elements within Quebecois society who believe that Quebec should exist as its own separate country. Anglo Canadians love to point out that the federal government paid for and built their infrastructure, so if they want to pay back all of that, fine, go ahead; many Anglos are constantly irritated and annoyed by the French.
Despite this, however, Quebec and its French culture are clearly things that make Canada, well, Canadian and add an extremely cool flavor to the whole mix here. In 1980, Quebec held a referendum about whether it should secede from the Canadian federal government or stay.
Literally thousands of people from all over Canada came to Quebec to plead with the citizens to remain part of Canada. I’ve heard the old radio news reports from that time, and people were actually crying, “Please don’t leave.” Many Quebecois were also crying, saying, “How can we consider this? What does it say to the rest of the world?”. Fortunately, the results were 60-40 against.
I can’t help but imagine that if Texas tried to do the same thing, millions of Americans would show up saying, “Please! Do it! Leave and good riddance!” OK I was being a smart-ass with that one, but I think you’ll understand my point. Canadians seem to like other Canadians more than most Americans like other Americans, even when they’re French.
Summary: Canada is very White, its culture is Western European, and the people who emigrate to it seem to acknowledge and appreciate that, as such, it is a much better place to live than wherever they came from. Canada is a clear example of the superiority of Western Culture and the benefits of White Rule.

Religion

Yes, we have it here. I see churches all over the place, especially in Alberta, which I believe boasts more churches per capita than any other province (once again, proof that Alberta secretly wishes it was the 51st State of the US).
However, there is much less “religion” here. It is not part of the political conversation and seems rarely, if ever, to be part of polite conversation. Alberta is the province which boasts the most Evangelicals, and it’s the only one where I’ve seen occasional billboards in rural areas featuring Right-To-Life slogans.
However, when I tried to call the 800 number on one to tell them to suck my dick, the number was disconnected, and the website on the sign no longer existed; that’s the degree of religious fervor out here. In Nova Scotia, I did see an anti-abortion protest outside of a hospital: Two old ladies in camp chairs watching a portable TV on an ice chest, their picket signs leaning against the fence behind them as people walked by in both directions.
Summary: In Canada, religion is essentially no one’s business but their own, so shut the fuck up, and please don’t block the sidewalk.

Guns, Crime and Violence

Guns are not banned in Canada; they are regulated and controlled. Allow me to slack off for a second and quote a Wikipedia article for a brief historical background:

Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation had become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered. As of April 6, 2012 the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation.
Systematic auditing and criminalization of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada, and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Law 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).
The Criminal Code of Canada provides recognition of self-defense with a firearm; The Firearms Act provides a legal framework wherein an individual may, acquire/possess and carry, a restricted or (a specific class of) prohibited firearm for protection from other individuals when police protection is deemed insufficient.
This situation is extremely rare, as evidenced by the fact that the (publicly available version of the) RCMP Authorization To Carry application refers only to protection of life during employment that involves handling of valuable goods or dangerous wildlife.

In short, you can have a gun if you have a good reason for it. “Personal protection” and just being afraid the government is going to show up and shove you in a FEMA trailer for re-education are not considered valid reasons. It is a matter of record that Canada’s rates of homicides and suicides using guns have further decreased as more and more restrictions have been put into place.
This has not eliminated crime, but it has clearly mitigated it. I’d rather have a guy come at me with a knife than a gun even if I’m similarly armed any day – I don’t know about you. To anyone in the US who maintains that lower violent crime can be achieved through an “armed society”, you need only look to Canada to see how absolutely shit-brained-stupid that is.
Canada has crime though. People get their cars stolen, there are rapes, there is drunk driving – all the usual. Canada even boasts some celebrated serial killers as well. Most Canadians do lock their doors when they leave for work and when they go to bed, despite what Michael Moore might want you to believe.
The difference between Canada and the US in this regard is the crime per capita. In a city as big as Calgary (approximately 1.4 million), which is about 30 minutes from me, the amount of crime compared to a similar-sized US city is ridiculously lower. There isn’t even as much trash on the ground. I’m not kidding – same goes for the rest of what I’ve seen of Canada.
What doesn’t exist are gangs to any great degree. In Vancouver you have some Asian gang stuff, some minor shit with Russians and some others in Toronto and Quebec, but nothing even close to what you have in the US.
Another thing I’ve noticed is the role of the “career criminal”.
In the US, being a criminal is an actual occupation for many, one which they pursue with great professionalism and acumen.
In Canada, most of the criminals I’ve seen and read about are basically stupid assholes. They steal some shit, maybe sell some drugs, and they get caught.
This one idiot drug dealer in Halifax lived in a trailer park, yet bought a bright yellow Hummer and parked it out front. After a few stray bullets zipped through his neighbors‘ homes courtesy of a rival “drug kingpin “ (yes, this is how the local news referred to him), the cops pretty much figured out that if they nabbed the guy in the yellow Hummer at the bridge toll-plaza, they’d get some answers.
Random acts of violence occur. Guys get dumped and kill their ex and her new boyfriend; a middle-aged loser who’s sponging off his grandmother’s pension checks decides he can smother her with a pillow and pretend she’s still alive; some guy hears Satan tell him he can fuck Avril Lavigne if he kills his whole family in their sleep, and so on.
But to be honest, most random, violent crimes I hear about around my neck of the woods, few as they are, involve immigrants. You can take the boy out of Viet Nam, but if you smile at his girlfriend during lunch time at the meat processing plant, he just might shove a fork in your neck.
The cops here are actually nice, at least the ones I’ve met. You’ve got your Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP’s), which function as the equivalent of the FBI and State police in provinces without a provincial police force (unlike Ontario or Newfoundland), the city police forces and the “peace officers” who enforce by-laws and do not carry weapons.
The only times I’ve dealt with cops, whether local or RCMP, they have said, “Hey, how’s it going,” introduced themselves and shook my hand, then calmly figured out what was going on. No twitchy hyper-vigilance, no hand on the gun as they approached. I’m guessing they may be a little different in the metropolii, but still, you don’t get Rodney King situations here.
If called to a bar in response to a complaint of a disturbance, a Canadian cop is more likely to say, “Hey, I think your friend’s a little drunk, why don’t you take him home?” as opposed to calling in six cars for backup and making the entire place lie face down with their hands behind their heads.
There are occasional stories of abuse, and there was a spate of deaths caused by tasering, but generally, since everyone doesn’t automatically hate them and want them dead, I think the cops are a bit more relaxed and less concerned with being intimidating. They are, after all, just guys trying to do their jobs, and I get that most Canadians understand and appreciate that.
Despite the fact that they seem less violent as a culture, do not make the mistake of thinking Canadians are pussies. Canadians drink, and they also fight. Hockey, the world’s most violent sport is, after all, a Canadian invention.
The difference, though, is the absence of ubiquitous and constant belligerence. If I go to a crowded concert or sporting event in the US, it’s a safe bet there will be more than one fight. My ex-roommate’s best friend from Northern California was jumped and had his brains beaten after a Dodgers-Giants game in LA; it put him in a coma, and he’s barely escaped being a vegetable.
It would be impossible to me to conceive of that happening here and actually is impossible to any Canadians I’ve spoken with about it. Can Canadians hold their liquor better, or are they just generally less angry, violent and belligerent? Maybe a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
Summary: Less guns, garbage, crime and violence, nicer cops, fewer incarcerated citizens and far less anxiety as a whole.

Weed

I smoke a lot of weed. I have been doing so for over 35 years. In Canada, medical marijuana is federally legal, but I can’t just go to a podiatrist and tell him I’ve been having trouble sleeping to get a license like in California. It requires multiple signed applications by several doctors and, like the gun licensing, the determining criterion is, “Why do you need it?”. Unfortunately, mild insomnia isn’t considered a valid reason.
Things like rheumatoid arthritis, cancer and serious medical conditions which require pain management are generally what are required. Once licensed, it means you can go anywhere in the country without getting hassled; you can even walk through an airport with a sack in your pocket, provided you have your license on you. You cannot, of course, burn one in public (legally). You can also grow some.
Despite the fact that I must, then, smoke weed illegally, there are a couple of benefits to doing so in Canada. First and foremost is that I can get a half ounce of good smoke for 120 bucks. Second is that the general attitude towards marijuana law enforcement is pretty relaxed. In most metropolitan areas, it is considered of “lowest priority,” officially, when it comes to enforcing pot laws.
In Vancouver, there are Amsterdam-style cafes where everyone’s smoking weed, and the cops leave them alone. In the case of illegal grow-ops, though, or significant trafficking, the cops, understandably, do not look the other way. But as far as normal people getting high and not causing any problems, the worst they usually do is take it away from you, tell you to “watch it”, and maybe smoke it themselves after work.
For the record though, Harper and the Tories have stated unequivocally that marijuana will not become legal as long as they are the majority. Fuck the Tories.
Summary: Canada’s a cool place if you smoke weed; just remember it’s still illegal (technically).

Civil Liberties

Gays can marry here – it’s been legal for quite some time – and, despite that fact, they are not running around having anal sex in the streets. Pre-employment and random drug screenings are forbidden as unconstitutional, yet people aren’t snorting coke at work or showing up baked to the gills.
Women can get abortions, and their health care covers it, yet there is not an epidemic of female promiscuity (much as I wish there were). Prostitution is, by certain definitions in certain areas, basically legal, or at least not criminal. Even the age of consent is much lower in some provinces, yet teenaged girls are not being incessantly fucked to death and discarded by middle-aged men.
The guiding principle behind Canada’s attitude towards civil liberties seems to be, “If they’re not hurting anyone or causing a fuss, leave them the fuck alone, it’s none of your business.” Pierre Trudeau wisely stated that the government has “no place in our bedrooms, period,” and he was agreed with by even the most right-wing politicians at the time, eventually.
I laugh my ass off every time I hear some Republican or Libertarian troll threaten to “move to Canada” if Obama gets re-elected. Not only would they not be issued a visa for such reasons, if they were, they would be forced to live in a place where fags can teach their kids, sluts can get abortions, niggers can get decent jobs, hippies can smoke weed and people claiming God speaks to them are not only banned from public office but they’re quite often placed under psychiatric observation.
Summary: I think my freedoms are more well-protected here than in the US.

Language

Canadians do not say aboot. Most commonly, the ow diphthong, which is broken down into the phonemes a (like cat) + oo in US English (and every English dictionary), is very often pronounced eh-oo in Canada, similar to how the Irish pronounce it.
In Atlantic Canada, it is common to hear the diphthong pronounced oh (I had a boss who actually spelled couch as coach because that’s how he pronounced it). They also usually pronounce sorry as soar-ee, been as bean, produce (n.) as prah-duce, project as proh-ject, process as proh-cess, schedule as shed-jule, missile as miss-isle and a slew of other British pronunciations.
What drives me nuts though is their insistence on pronouncing virtually any a they see as the short a in cat. It’s difficult for me to represent graphically, but go ahead and say to yourself the following words with that short a and see how lame it sounds: pAsta, tsunAmi, drAma, mAzda. Ugh. Sonically, it makes me fucking cringe.
And I know it’s a matter of taste, but to me, mispronouncing names and proper nouns from other languages in that fashion just seems ignorant. I guess that’s a vestige of the famous British contempt for other cultures giving a last, dying twitch.
I have adopted the Canadian forms of spelling; I think it’s cool. They use the British forms here almost exclusively: colour, centre, defence, and so on. They do not use the spelling aluminium. They do, however, use the silent h in herb.
But while Canadian spelling I may have adopted, most of Canadian pronunciation I have not. The exception is when I play “I’m pretending to be Canadian.” I have at various times when doing this been pegged as a Maritimer (someone from Atlantic Canada), since I have a good grasp of the accent and “isms“ I absorbed while in Nova Scotia.
Though I am functional in French, I rarely have occasion to use it. Canadian French, though, is far more dissimilar to its parent than Canadian English, and volumes could be written about Francophone (French-speaking) culture in Canada, and I haven’t enough experience to do so with any credibility or thoroughness.
Summary: Someone could drop you in the middle of any major Canadian city outside of Quebec in your sleep, and it’d take you a bit to realize, just hearing people speak, that you weren’t in the US.

Civility

This is, to me, the single most important difference between Americans and Canadians, and I believe this trait informs all the positive ones I’ve previously outlined. Canadians are civil. They are brought up holding doors for other people, apologizing if they think they’ve offended or been a nuisance and just in general trying to be kind and decent to everyone else, even if they don’t like them.
The concept that your negative personal feelings towards others should not inform your actions towards them, that it’s right and beneficial to society to be polite to everyone regardless of whether you hate their guts or not is so obvious to them that it doesn’t bear mentioning.
Canadians’ default mode is “nice”. When in doubt, just be nice. Don’t understand something? Be nice and ask what someone meant, don’t just immediately go “Oh, yeah? FUCK YOU!” and start swinging if you aren’t sure whether you’ve been insulted or not.
Canadians don’t automatically assume the worst motive for the actions of others. If a guy’s going off and making a fuss about something, the first thought is usually, “Wow, he must really be having a bad day.” One of the keys to civility is cutting each other some slack, being easy on each other, at least the first couple times.
Canadians seem much better at this “a mile in my neighbor’s moccasins” philosophy than most Americans. They’ve been inculcated with good behavior through example; they don’t even think about it. As a result, even the immigrants get in on it within a generation.
Of course, there are those who recognize this tendency towards civility and understanding and try to subvert it for their own purposes. These types will invariably either adopt a disingenuously oblivious mien (“Oh, did I cut in front of you? Gee, didn’t see the end of the line.”) or will behave blatantly aggressively in the hopes of causing others to back down and avoid any type of confrontation, something that seems bred into most Canadians from birth.
I am at times frustrated by what I sometimes perceive as a pathological need to avoid confrontation of any kind. I see people allow others to take advantage of and inconvenience them without saying anything, and it pisses me off.
Some ass-wipe the other day at a movie theater, in which one joins a single line while waiting for the next available cashier, was standing near a particular window which looked as if it would free-up next, clearly intending to head straight for it while avoiding the line.
I, of course, ever-vigilant to such things and being a self-appointed Guardian of Civilization and Warrior against the Americanization of Canada, moved forward immediately when the register became available, shoving in front of the asshole and saying, “I was here first. The line’s over there.”
He muttered something under his breath as he walked to the line. Coincidentally, he was quite swarthy and spoke with a thick Middle-Eastern accent. Fuckers who style themselves “wolves among sheep” in this country fill me with cold rage. Despite the fact that your average Canadian finds my attitude and actions inappropriate, I will gladly suffer their disapproval, kinda like Batman has to.
Canadians are also far more respectful, in general, of people’s privacy. I hear less gossip and less mean shit behind people’s backs than I did in the States. People don’t pry as much, they aren’t as obsessed with going through your laundry, and are far less likely to share something private they may have learned about you.
For example, I was a porn actor in the US for a time; I got some press, and my stuff shows up on cable every now and then (gotta love Canadian cable; when they show porn, they leave in the penetration), so I am infrequently recognized.
A guy I worked with, when I confessed about my former occupation after having known him a few months, told me he already knew. When I asked why he didn’t tell me he knew his response was that if I’d wanted him to know, I would have told him, and it was none of his business.
In a similar situation in the US, a guy I worked with was so excited to know that he told everybody I worked with, including my bosses, and from then on, every time I spoke with them, though they never let on they knew, there was this weird awkwardness, like they couldn’t look at me without seeing me naked.
On the flipside, an Iranian immigrant kid I was in training with at this call center in Halifax sat down next to me one day, grinning. “Hey, hey, do you have tattoo? Show me”.
I lifted my sleeve and showed him, and he all-but shouted “Ha! I knew it! I see you, I see you on TV!” I convinced him to keep his mouth shut, but I’d catch the weird little fucker staring and grinning at me from across the room fairly often, and he’d give me the thumbs-up if I looked up at him.
Summary: The more civil you are, the better everyone gets along and the better your civilization.

In Closing

A banking system under control, sane gun laws, lower crime, universal health care, a thriving middle class, no illegal immigration problem, cheap weed, way less garbage all over the place, fewer assholes per capita, a strong federal government with excellent social programs…isn’t this sorta what Obama’s America would look like?

Can't Make It Without Immigrant Scabs? Just Go!

Repost from the old site.
We hear over and over again about all these businesses that supposedly are going to go out business if they can’t hire immigrant scabs. And that’s what every single illegal alien is in this country – a scab. Let’s make that loud and clear here.
And H-1B “non-immigrant guest workers” that have totally destroyed the computer industry for US engineers and programmers are nothing but scabs too. Indian nationalists tell me that without H-1B’s, all US computer corporations will have to go out of business. Well, first of all, that is complete nonsense. It’s not going to happen.
This is all based on the premise that there is such horrible competition from those great computer corporations in INDIA that are, you know, going to put Microsoft and Intel out of business.
I’ve also heard it from a fish processing plant in New England that now hires all illegal aliens. Back in the 1980’s, this was a union shop paying high wages. Bottom line is they broke the union. Now they pay crap wages and the only people dumb or desperate enough to work there are illegals. I suppose they are treated just wonderfully too.
So they need to hire illegals. As always, Americans will do the horrible, smelly and dirty work, but you need to pay them a good wage. This is what happened to our meat packing plants too, exactly. This is also what happened to the US construction industry. One by one, they broke the constructions unions.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, my friends were working union construction. It paid good money, enough to buy a home and raise a family. That’s all pretty much gone now. The jobs that once paid the equivalent of $30-45/hour in today’s wages are mostly history. There are still union jobs around, but not that many, and they have to wage continuous war against illegals.
There’s also a serious problem with legal immigrants from Mesoamerica who we have insanely allowed to flood in here. The result has been a complete glut in unskilled labor, such that many legal Mesoamericans are happy to work construction for $10/hr.
These jobs used to pay $30-45/hr. One would think that with a 30-75% decline in the cost of labor, even including inflation, that the cost of a house would have gone down. Forget it. Instead, we have seen insane increases in inequality and lopsided returns for those at the top of the heap.
I blame the Left in part for all of this. For the destruction of the US middle class and working class, for the crime and gang wave among young Americans in our cities (all the unskilled work goes to illegals, so young men turn to crime, gangs and dope).
For the mad increases in inequality, for the decline in wages for US workers, for workers have to work two and three jobs to get by, for the entire rightwing and Republican revolution (created in part by the empowerment of a 20% upper to upper middle class that benefited tremendously by massive wealth redistribution), for the ruination of US unions.
There were many factors at play in the development of these sorry reactionary and backwards trends over 35 years, but the US Idiot Left cheering on mass legal and illegal immigration into the US, especially in the past 20 years, has played its own sorry and significant role.
The American worker doesn’t really have any friends anymore. Both parties are supporting his total and absolute replacement by a never-ending tidal wave of immigrant scabs.
There have been some posts lately about a particularly gratuitous, outrageous and in your face abuse of immigration law in a town called Postville, Iowa in a plant that was managed by Orthodox Jews.
They came into Postville, took over the plant, got rid of all the Americans, and hired all illegal aliens. They are now polluting the water supply. I doubt they have paid much taxes either. Apparently they were also allowing the plant to be used to manufacture methamphetamine! How low can you go?
This incident has been written up a lot, including a book by a Jewish author that was quite critical of these Orthodox Jews – Steven Bloom – Postville – A Clash of Cultures in the Heartland. They came into the town, would not talk to or be friendly with anyone not Jewish, filled the town with illegal Mesoamericans, and basically created a lot of havoc.
This particular Jewish family – the Rubashkins – have been crooks for a very long time. They’ve been not only ripping off the Gentiles in the traditional Orthodox manner, but they have also specialized in ripping off their own people. That’s actually a violation of Jewish dual morality, and it may explain why they got some fellow Jews after them.
The Jewish press, as usual, wrote glowing articles about this wonderful situation in this small Iowa town, and Jewish Hollywood made a stupid documentary narrated by Glen Close and sponsored by Hallmark that lied and said how wonderful everything was in Postville, Iowa.
Here is Steve Sailer’s excellent article on this situation. The comments are also enlightening. There is a Jewish commenter (apparently) on there defending the Lubavitchers running the slaughterhouse (the Lubavitchers are the very worst of all ultra-Orthodox Jews). His line is that if they shut down the plant, it will be an economic disaster for Postville.
I get to the point of my post.
So shut it down already! Seriously, just shut down the fucking plant. They aren’t hiring any Americans anyway. Just move it to Mexico and take the 800 Mexican scabs with you.
That’s basically my response to all these idiots who say we need to bring in Indian H-1B job thief scabs and illegals to do all this work that supposedly Americans just won’t do. Supposedly it’s going to harm US business too much to get rid of all the immigrant scabs, legal and illegal.
Look man, if you can’t make it paying American workers the wages that they want (not too high, actually) just take the fuck off. Go overseas. Offshore. Move your damn business to a foreign country. What good is a business in the US that isn’t even hiring Americans anyway?
Who’s making money off that, besides the criminal owner? A bunch of immigrant scabs, that’s who. And they are worthless. They add nothing to this country, they and their jobs can go in a NY minute without a tear to be shed. These businesses are nothing but parasites in our country. If all a business can do in our country is just be a parasite, then just move your damn operation offshore and get the Hell out of the country.

Pat Buchanon As a Covert White Nationalist

A commenter writes:

Pat Buchanan also seems to be a White Nationalist, or at least someone who believes the US should remain a majority White country forever and uses his “Western Civilization” term as a code for White domination constantly. I’m sure his covert White Nationalism (Which I guess is Nixon era moderate ideology isn’t it?) is what got him kicked off liberal MSNBC.
Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the Left, aren’t they?

Yes Buchanan is a covert White nationalist in a sense. Buchanan is about as far as any form of WN, no matter how mild, has made it in the mainstream. There is little stomach for even Buchanan’s very mild race realism and White ethnocentrism which is why he is being thrown off venue after venue.
Buchanan has few other peers in the mass media, as there is almost no space there for them. Actually, aside from his antisemitism (itself quite mild), Buchanan’s views are quite mild in terms of WN and HBD in general. He’s pretty much saying what a lot of us liberals think but are too frightened to say.
But almost all true White nationalists want to split off and form their own state. Few WN’s want to just keep the US a White majority country anymore, as that seems to be hopeless anyway. The definition of WN anymore seems to be one who wants a separate White country.
Most WN’s nowadays are split into a few camps:
1. Take back the US by force. Enforce White dominance at the state level and throw out the minorities and send them back to wherever. With the most extreme, this would involve some level of genocide or mass murder against non-Whites and “White traitors,” especially Jews and White race traitors.
2. White separatists. Most WN’s nowadays are White Separatists. They want a separate White state in the US along with separate states for Blacks and Hispanics or possibly a separate mixed race state where anyone could live. This has always been the goal of almost all of the major WN figures. Those who deny this are basically lying. WN for all intents and purposes is White separatism in one form or another.
3. The apartheid crowd. Some want to take back the US, enforce White dominance, but not throw out the minorities. This is a lesser trend. They want to keep the minorities under heel with some form of apartheid or Jim Crow. At the very least, they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws.
4. Get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. This is the least toxic of the trends, and it’s the fallback position in the even that there is no White state and no White capture of the state and enforced apartheid. All WN’s and I do mean all of them believe that we should eliminate all anti-discrimination laws. Then White towns at least could be set up where there would be massive discrimination against nonwhites on a private level.
This ties in very well with the Libertarian position since all Libertarians want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. People of color support Libertarianism at their own risk.
5. End all immigration, legal and illegal. Some modify this to say that we should allow immigration by Whites. This is a fallback minimal position. Obviously this is never going to happen either. We can’t even limit legal immigration. We can’t stop illegal immigration, and there are continuous calls for amnesty. This will never fly, but it’s supported by all WN’s with vehemence. The 1965 Immigration Act was one of the worst things that ever happened to America in their book.
6. End affirmative action. All WN’s support this, and quite a few regular folks do too. This is another fallback minimal position and ties in well with the positions of the Republican Party.
7. Sing the praises of a White majority US and White dominance, bash minorities, but do nothing to keep a White majority or White dominance in place. This is essentially a rhetorical position, and it’s where Pat Buchanan is coming from.
One very smart Black commenter on here wrote a while back that the logical end result of WN could only be genocide, apartheid (or separatism) or expulsion. He was correct of course.

Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the left, aren’t they?

Unfortunately, most Black, Latino and Indian racists are indeed on the Left, often on the Far Left. As there is no space for racism on the Left, this has always bothered me, but on the Left, they say that these folks are not really racists. They’re just fighting back against White racism and only Whites can be racist, bla bla bla.

Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob

Repost from the old site.

Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven’t they?

If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.

I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.

What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.

What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.

It’s hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the line of the Western Left must be out of his mind.

It says right on the sidebar that I’m heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I’m a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.

To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I’m almost done reading it. It’s pretty entertaining, but I’m warning you, this is toxic stuff.

While most of us don’t even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.

I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals – as having invariable behavior.

Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I’m not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatter plot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.

On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.

Unless you understand what a scatter plot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can’t discuss racial differences at all.

Why discuss racial differences at all?

Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.

And because the Left’s reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.

This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.

All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war “to rid them from the Earth”.

Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.

Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.

Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.

Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist jerks, much less racial separatists.

There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.

I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.

Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.

The reason for the Left’s opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They’re all White, and almost all, or all, of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven’t found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.

Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.

But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals, and groups are groups. You can’t tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.

With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?

It’s really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There’s got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

More Illegal Immigration Madness

Repost from the old site.
First off, let me start out by saying that I am a Leftist. In fact, I am a Communist. However, unlike 99% of Leftists, I actually oppose illegal immigration. Why? Because it is one of the worst things that has ever happened to American workers of all colors.
In my town, I figure that 85% of local Hispanics support the illegals that run amok all over here. The reason for that is clear. Hispanics, like every other group except Whites, are allowed to be and even encouraged to be ethnocentric.
What’s completely insane about is that in their ethnocentrism, Hispanics are really hurting themselves. You never see a Help Wanted sign in this town. Why would you, when the unemployment rate is 11%? Yet I don’t know one single illegal alien who is out of work. It seems 100% of them are working.
My White friend has roofing skills. He goes down to the local hiring hall and tries to get hired, but he does demand $9/hr. That’s $1 over minimum wage. Yet every time, the employers say that some illegal over there will do it for $4-5/hr (that’s far below minimum wage).
Also, my friend says that every job he applies for demands bilingual skills in Spanish. As he is not bilingual, he is SOL.
I find this ridiculous. It might be slightly sensible if these Spanish speakers were natives who had lived here since 1850 and hence had some right to their native tongue.
Instead, almost all of the ones you will need to use Spanish with are illegal aliens who hopped the border in the past 20 years. The notion that one cannot get a job in the US unless one speaks a foreign language is preposterous. I think it ought to be illegal.
Bottom line is I know all sorts of young Americans around here who are out of work. Now, they aren’t always the most wonderful citizens, but if there were Help Wanted signs all over town, I think they could work somewhere.
Instead, they are unemployed and spend their days involved with gangs, crime, tagging, rolling drunks, fighting with gang rivals, leeching off their stupid girlfriends, engaging in petty thievery, and especially smoking dope. They just in general act highly uncivilized.
I would like to point out here that in a manner that is little discussed, illegal immigration has been partly responsible for gangsta culture, drug abuse, laziness, and just general cultural degeneration among young Americans of all races.
Studies have shown that as illegal immigration has increased over the past 20 years or so, the number of young Americans who count themselves as “discouraged workers” who have dropped out of the labor force has grown significantly.
The two things must be related.
Illegals are taking all the low-skilled labor and these were the sort of jobs young Americans cut their working teeth on in their youth. With no work to do, young Americans become discouraged, drop out and culturally degenerate in various ways.
In the comments section, commenter Lafayette brings up a highly pro-immigrant Weltanshauung in the UK involving Polish workers. The content is familiar. Britons are told endlessly the society will collapse if not for the immigrants. There are so many jobs that young Britons just will not do. If the immigrants go, the economy will tank. On and on.
I don’t know the dynamic of Polish immigrants in the UK, but I assume that they are working for lower wages than Britons work for. Otherwise the entire UK media would not be cheering them on. I also noticed an article recently that said that Polish workers were better workers than British workers.
This is part of the pro-immigrant culture that we went through in the West under Reagan. Starting under Reagan, a new culture developed in America whereby rightwingers repeatedly endlessly what crappy workers Americans were, especially blue collar workers. There was no evidence for this whatsoever, but the talk went on.
Americans, mostly young Whites, were also told that blue collar jobs were for losers. The only way to be a winner in America was to run a business or work in an office. Good, honest, US working class culture was degraded with an incessant drumbeat. At the same time, the illegals started to pour in.
I think that these two things were connected.
There was a concerted rightwing project to tell young Americans that working class jobs were for losers and that US working class workers were crappy workers, combined with the beginnings of a total flood of unskilled labor from south of the border. The unstated assumption: the US working class all needed to be replaced by immigrants, especially illegals from Mesoamerica.
At the same time, an all-out war was waged on unions, the organizations of the US working class. The notion was also promoted that Americans are some kind of sissy fussbudgets who will not do any kind low-status labor. Therefore, we needed to import millions of illegals to do this work or else the economy would collapse. We were also regularly harangued with stories about phantom labor shortages.
After about 15 years or so of mass unskilled illegal immigration, the US Left did an about-face and decided to represent the interests of immigrant scabs over native workers. The nasty and wicked notion that normal, sane and reasonable opposition to illegal immigration was racism (!) was promoted, and soon wormed its way through the whole culture to where it is now widely accepted.
After that, the labor unions themselves, the last holdout of the workers, went over to the immigrant scabs, and US workers were finally left completely high and dry.
I would like to point out that the entire MSM was complicit in this, and they are to this day. Realize that if the MSM is consistent about any one thing, it is their sheer and utter contempt for labor. There is not one single major US newsmagazine, TV news station or large daily newspaper that is the slightest bit friendly to labor, much less organized labor.
As the UK’s lunatic pro-immigrant culture continued, these same nasty memes wormed their way into the culture. One is the notion that there are certain jobs that Britons simply will not do. It’s not stated, but what’s implied is that Britons will not do this work for any amount of money. I don’t know about Britons, but here in the US, that’s manifestly untrue for anything other than field work.
A much more pernicious line soon followed, and this is that the foreigners are actually better workers than the natives. The Right will start this line, but soon the ultra-traitors of the Idiot Left will pick up on it.
I had an anarchist say straight to my face that US workers are lazy and incompetent, and that’s why we need illegals to replace them (!).
Lafayette also points out that in the UK, the entire Left has given up on the working class. Instead, it is supporting immigrant scabs who are being brought in for the sole purpose of driving down the cost of labor for UK native workers.
What followed after that is that the labor unions themselves got on board and supported the immigrant scabs over the interests of native workers. Since government and media never support native workers, and as Lafayette notes, the Left completely gave up on them, what this means is that native workers lost their last friend – their very own unions .
The Left here in the US and UK will respond with the pleasant-sounding nostrum that what is needed is to organize all of the immigrants, especially the illegals. The problem is that this feel-good fall-back position is utterly doomed to failure.
The notion that organizing these illegals is going to help anything is even more idiotic here in the US than it is in the UK. Unionization in the US has been plummeting since the 1950’s and in particular since 1973. Unions are now so weak that it’s ridiculous. That they are suddenly going to organize all of these immigrant scabs and regain all their power and glory is comical.
Even if they did organize the immigrants, as Lafayette notes, what good is it with ten or more workers lining up for every unskilled job? All the unions in the world are pretty useless in the face of a tidal wave and resulting massive glut in unskilled labor.
Under capitalism, labor is like pricing – it is based on supply and demand. Massive oversupply of low-skilled labor will result in the bottoming out of the price of labor just as massive oversupply in a type of goods will result in the collapse in the price of that particular widget.
So with fields like construction totally glutted with low to unskilled workers, the high-paying construction jobs of yesterday are never coming back, whether you organize the immigrant scabs or not.
US unions can’t even organize US workers and get them to join unions. How will they organize a bunch of illegals who can’t even speak English?
P.S. I am not a xenophobe. I do support limited (200,000 a year?), tightly controlled legal immigration. The immigrants should be rigorously analyzed, and the vast majority of potential immigrants should be rejected. Immigrants should be required to jump through many hoops in order to prove to us exactly how they will be an asset to our nation instead of adding to our nightmarish underclass.
Educational, legal and other histories should be reviewed. Those immigrants from whatever land who successfully run this tough gauntlet are likely to be net benefits as opposed to net detractors to our nation.
One of the principal problems with illegal immigrants is that it is unscreened, so instead of getting high-quality immigrants, we get the peasantry and urban poor of the Third World. They are unlikely to be net benefits to our land in either the short or long run. Chain migration (family reunification) should be drastically scaled back or ended altogether.

Open Borders is Bad For Workers

Repost from the old site.
Commenter James Schipper of Canada points out what any economics student or especially Marxist ought to be able to figure out: that open borders is terrible for workers in high-wage countries. That the Left in high-wage countries supports such an obviously detrimental to workers agenda means that it completely misunderstands the economics of modern capitalism.
Nowadays, the Western Left can only be said to be worker-hostile towards native workers. They support immigrant workers, and it is a known fact that immigrant workers in many cases in the West have been shown to actually lower wages for native workers. The Left responds that this is a lie.
Even worse, the Left calls any Western Leftist who opposes certain modes of immigration racist. At best, this is a grotesque abuse of the term similar to the way many objectively reactionary groups are overusing this word these days. At worst, it is slander and name-calling.
The Left’s objective hostility to native workers in the West has resulted in historic losses in recent days in Belgium, Italy and the UK. It seems that only right-wing nativist parties are appealing to workers in these countries. Much of the vote for the rightwing is due to anger at uncontrolled immigration in these countries.
The extent to which these rightwing and often fascist or proto-fascist parties will actually work for the interests of workers is not known, but historically, they have not benefited workers much and have tended to side with capital over workers every time. As the Left grows more and more irrelevant, it continues piping away at the same old losing tune.
Things are much different here in the US, where both parties are 100% pro-mass immigration, and indeed both are apparently 100% pro-illegal immigration. In the US, there is no candidate for a voter wishing to express an anti-immigrant agenda. This is ominous in that it means that a demagogue of the Right could potentially win many votes on this issue alone.
The election of either Obama or McCain would probably result in a renewed attempt at mass amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens, with resulting chain migration of up to 30 million of their often-hazy and not too cool relatives over the next 20 years or so.
Such a monumental mass migration of poorly screened immigrants with a known tendency to form a vast underclass should at least be discussed by American voters. Instead, the entire elite supports this project as do all of their media. Most especially, 100% of the large business class and much of the small business class of the US support illegal immigration, fake guest H-1B workers, and mass legal immigration.
Studies show that up to 75-80% of the US public opposes broad aspects of this mass immigration project. It is ridiculous to characterize 75-80% of the US as “racist” for opposing this project and harkens to the abuse of this term by reactionaries above.
Anyway, take a look at James’ comments:

Let’s take two swimming pools, one with 6 feet of water and the other with 2 feet. If they are at the same level and connected with an underground pipe, what is going to happen? Obviously, water will flow from the first pool to the second, thereby lower the water level of the first and raising that of the second.Similarly, if there is complete freedom of movement of goods, labor and capital between a high-wage and low-wage country, the wage level in the rich country will fall and that of the poor country will rise. The magnitude of the change will depend on the relative size of the high-wage and low-wage country.
If there are completely open borders between India and Australia, then wages in Australia will fall a lot, but they will barely rise in India. Conversely, if there are no barriers to the flow of goods, labor and capital between the US and Nicaragua, wages in the US will hardly go down, but they will rise a lot in Nicaragua. Numbers always matter.
Another problem with free international migration is that it creates an open demographic system. Open systems have the advantage that they make the import of solutions possible but they also have the disadvantage that they allow problems to be exported.
Suppose that Ruritania stabilizes its population, but that Slobodia’s population keeps growing. If there are open borders between the two countries, Slobodia will export people to Ruritania and Ruritania’s population will grow despite its demographic stabilization.
Likewise, if Ruritania succeeds in raising the standard of living of its workers while Slobodia does not, then, if there are open borders, many Slobodians will emigrate to Ruritania, thereby lower the standard of living of Ruritanian workers.
What is true of demographic open borders is also true of commercial open borders. If there is completely free trade between Ruritania and Slobodia, then any efforts to conserve non-renewable resources by Ruritania may be nullified by Slobodia. Under free trade, a country whose population remains below its carrying capacity may still experience starvation because a lot of its food will be exported to countries with populations above their carrying capacity.
If there is complete freedom of movement of goods, labor and capital between countries, the fast breeders will export their problems to the slow breeders, the slow economic growers will export their problems to the fast growers and the depleters will export their problems to the conservers.
Finally, a quote by Wouter Bos, the leader of the Dutch Labor Party: “We have to choose between a generous welfare state and restrictive immigration on the one hand and a stingy welfare state and liberal immigration on the other hand.” Sensible words! if only more leftists saw things that clearly.

The Republican Pledge to America Cannot Possibly Work

I’ve seen the Republican agenda, and I’ve heard them talking tonight on and on about what they are going to do. Trust me, nothing that they are going to do could possibly have a good affect on anything important, much less the economy.
Tons of tax cuts. This will blow up the deficit they hate way worse than before.
It won’t help the economy because the economy is suffering from lack of demand. Business is already sitting on a record mountain of cash. They don’t need any more of it. Giving them more won’t make them hire one more worker. The problem is lack of customers. More supply side (neoclassical) economics won’t do anything to solve that.
The lack of demand is due to the economic crisis. It’s also due to a 35 year war that the Right has waged on working people via outsourcing, union busting, Hindu 1-B and other guest workers, and mass immigration, legal and illegal. They’re crushed the American worker, smashing his wages and income. It’s classical capitalist class war. As Fordists would argue, this is having its predicted effect in that workers can no longer afford to buy the stuff that business is selling.
There has also been a mass transfer of income to the well off. The top 10% of the income earners now spend fully 1/3 of all US consumer spending. This is the 3rd World model of economic development, where a tiny elite is the economic engine for the whole country, and everyone else festers in some shantytown. Good luck with that model.
Cut government spending. This is retarded. In the US, government spending is 20% of GDP. By cutting government spending, you cut GDP by definition. Get it, idiots? Cutting spending in the middle of a downturn worsens the downturn, resulting in a recession or depression. Expect that to occur if spending is heavily cut.
Pledge to work across the aisle. The Republican Party’s goal in 2008 was to do everything possible to make sure that Obama would not be elected in 2012. They will continue to do this. They will oppose everything that he will try to do. If he tries to do rightwing things, they may go along with him, but that’s dubious. Look forward to 2 years of total gridlock.
The Capitalist Shit Market, I mean the Capitalist Stock Market, rallied on the elections not because Republicans were going to win but because a Republican win would mean a gridlocked government that is so paralyzed it can’t do anything. All of you who love the stock market or the US corporate class so much ought to think about that. The US corporate class, via its institution, the stock market, wants a gridlocked state that does as little as possible. So those of you who feel that the government ought to do something (like “create jobs”), ought to rethink your cheering on of the US corporate class or the US stock market.
You heard that right. Business wants a government that does nothing. Capitalists are wonderful people!
Get rid of regulations on business. Business is regulated, in general, in the interest of consumers, workers, society and the environment. By deregulating, you by definition harm consumers, workers, society and the environment. Because the economic crisis is due the financial mess, not lack of regulation, deregulation will do nothing to help the economy. The economy will not improve until the financial crisis is dealt with. The other aspect of the problem economy is lack of demand. All the deregulation on Earth will not put one more penny in the hands of workers and consumers. It will enrich business, but business is already sitting on an Everest of cash. This will fail to help the economy.
Create jobs! The state cannot create jobs except through stimulus spending and deficit spending, which these shitheads oppose for ideological, not economic reasons. As we discussed above, all the tax cuts and deregulation on Earth will not create one job absent a solution to the financial crisis and/or measures to restart demand. The huge spending cuts they are advocating will by definition result in GDP loss and will actually cause loss of jobs, not job gain. Therefore, this will fail.
The entire Republican project cannot possibly help the economy because it’s not economics. Or rather, it’s bad economics. Better, it’s politically driven economics. It’s economic policy in pursuit of political goals such as gutting the state for ideological reasons and waging the class war of the top 20% (all earners earning over $75,000/yr) against the bottom 80% (all earners earning less than $75,000/yr. It’s the economics of economic destruction, not economic growth.

How Does the Republican Party REALLY Feel About Immigration?

I don’t know…It was the Democrats and Left that passed the 1965 Immigration Act. That’s just the facts. The Right were racist elitists, but it seems they’d rather have lived in a White country than plot to destroy the middle class—back then. But by the time Regan came around the Right picked up illegal immigration, too, and were using it for their machinations. Then years going back and forth, both Left and Right supporting or ignoring it.

The plot to destroy the middle class began in the 1970’s, really got under way with Reagan and dramatically accelerated under Bush. Keep in mind that this is just a theory mine – I can’t prove that such a plot was actually concocted.
The Right was silent about the 1965 Immigration Act.
Immigration, legal and illegal, really ramped up under Reagan. In 1979, it was only 400,000/yr or so.
The Right in the US has never opposed legal immigration as far as I can tell. The Republican Party has always been 100% in back of legal immigration. And I think they’ve always supported the illegals too, because they are the party of business, and business demands the illegals. The Right in general has never done the slightest damned thing to get stop these illegals, except at the state level. In particular, going after the employers simply has not occurred at all.
Obama has deported vastly more illegals than Bush did. Remember, Bush tried to legalize all of them. And illegal immigration exploded under Reagan.
The Right are complete assholes, just like they are about most everything. They want to have it both ways. First of all, they love these illegals for the purposes of smashing down wages, and really that’s all the Right, which is the political arm of Business, cares about. However, the Right’s base screams about the illegals, so the Right, while encouraging the illegals to come and doing nothing to get rid of them while they are here, feeds their base with anti-illegal rhetoric which is just that. Even Proposition 187 in 1994 under Governor Pete Wilson was not intended to stop illegals. We know this because Wilson fought any and all efforts to crack down on businesses hiring illegals. The Right just pushes anti-illegal rhetoric to get votes from non-elite and working class Whites who in their right minds would not be voting them. It’s a double game, like most crap the Right does.
Obama has deported illegals at a higher rate than any administration in history.
The bottom line for the Right is always money, capitalism and business. As long as Capital demands that these illegals be here, the Right won’t get rid of them. End of story.
There have been interesting moves at the state level. In Arizona, a rightwing Republican governor passed a very harsh anti-illegal measure that was surely opposed by her business constituents. Granted, that’s an interesting dynamic.
Bush and McCain tried a very sneaky double game. They tried to legalize the 12 million illegals so they could be used as cheap labor, but at the same time would make it almost impossible for them to become citizens, at which point, they may well vote Democrat. The law would have converted illegals into citizens at the earliest in 17 years, and only after making them jump lots of hurdles.
Only the Buchananite wing of the Republican Party has said anything at all about immigration.
The main wing of the Republican Party, capital, business, money interests, loves immigration. Recall that capitalism needs constant growth in order to function. Capitalists love growing populations because it means more consumers, more houses, more this, more that = growing economy.
The Left has always supported the illegals, true, but at least they are consistent and have a solid ideological position.
Obama plays a bit of a double game on the illegals. He tells the Hispanics he’s going to legalize them in order to get their votes, then he never does it! He never does it because he knows it’s political suicide.
So both sides are sort of feeding the bases phony lines that they are not willing to follow through on.
But back in the 1970’s, super liberal California governor Jerry Brown used to regularly cheer on raids against illegals. It wasn’t a very controversial issue back then – most everyone was against them, but it was seen as kind of a joke, because it was like bailing out the ocean.

The Insanity of Unilateral Anti-Racism

Repost from the old site.
In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib, a very smart British White guy with no interest in White nationalism, notes, regarding WN, that the WN’s do have a point:

A White Nationalist argument that has some merit is that tribal loyalties are unfortunate but inevitable, and in the face of the organised tribal interest of at least one demographic, whites should not have their hands tied behind their backs. Could you deny that there is some merit in that? 

I respond: As much as I dislike the WN’s for their overt racism and dislike for nearly all non-Whites, they are the only folks here in the US that have the balls to discuss certain truths that no one else with touch with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension.
I discussed this very issue with Kevin McDonald himself a while back, and he agreed with me when I said that Whites either need to go ethnocentric just like the Jews or they are going to get screwed by the ethnocentric group.
That’s a problem with the Jews. Their ethnocentrism advantages them.
The only sane way to fight it, or fight any competing ethnocentric ethnic, is to go ethnocentric right back on them. I’m not saying kill em, but do to the Jews whatever they do to us (they don’t kill us). Otherwise, in capitalism, an ethnocentric group will tend to win out over a less ethnocentric group.
This is what commenter James Schipper means when he says that unilateral anti-racism makes no sense. It’s makes about as much sense as unilateral disarmament. As long as the opposing ethnics are racist, your group has to at least keep its guard up. You can’t go around singing Kumbaya and hugging competing ethnics while they are using racism and ethnocentricity against you. You’ll get screwed.
What’s really happened here in the US is that US Whites have gone overboard for anti-racism, while frankly, I don’t think the other ethnics have. I think other ethnics mostly just use anti-racism as a club to beat Whites with whenever they get pissed at us.
We are already hearing stories about Black city governments that preferentially hire Blacks and discriminate against White applicants. The insanity of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) scab labor scam means that whole IT shops get flooded with crappy Indian cheap labor coders. Eventually, management is replaced by Indian management.
Indian Hindus being very ethnocentric folks, they quickly fire all of the remaining Americans (mostly Whites) and replace them with Hindu 1-B job-thieving invaders.
Jews have long practiced preferential hiring in many industries, particularly Hollywood, and it’s actually one of the secrets of their success. Jewish directors have even bragged in interviews that they preferentially hire Jews and dared anyone to do anything about it.
In fact, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s, I believe that the Jews who were very influential in this fight tried to write the laws specifically so that Jews would not get busted for discriminatory hiring.
In California, we have Hispanic employers who will openly tell you to your face that they only hire their own kind.
What’s interesting about all of this is that I am not aware of any Black, Hispanic, Hindu Indian or Jewish employer who has ever run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, nor have they ever been sued. Who bears the brunt of these laws? Whites and only Whites. As long as anti-discrimination laws are just used as clubs to beat Whites with, I can almost understand, but not condone, White racists’ opposition to them.
There is another kind of discrimination that is more subtle going on now, in that the utter insanity of mass legal and illegal Mesoamerican immigration, especially in the West, has resulted in entire fields, such as construction, that are now de facto Hispanic occupations.
Hispanics, almost all both legal and illegal immigrants, have been working in them for so long that when they have an opening, they just ask the other Hispanic workers, and they go get one of their Hispanic buddies. They often won’t hire Whites because they’re going to be like the only White guy on the crew. So a de facto “Hispanic old boys network” has been created.
Further, formerly good-paying, often unionized, often heavily-White jobs, fields and occupations have now gone permanently low-wage and immigrant.
At the slaughterhouse in Iowa that finally got raided by ICE and where 300 illegals were then hauled away, the slaughterhouse contemplated shutting down. But they quickly hauled in 300 immigrant refugee Somalis who were perfectly happy to work a very unpleasant non-union job for a crap wage and horrific treatment.
In this way, the insanity of mass immigration, legal and illegal, has destroyed high-paying, unionized, heavily-White working class jobs if not forever, then at least into the foreseeable future. What’s terrifying about this is that even deporting the 12-40 million illegals in the US might not necessarily solve it.
We have a venal, traitorous, America-hating capitalist class here in the US that has become addicted to cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor that they can underpay, slide on taxes, insurance and regulation with, and treat like total shit.
Like a drug addict pulled off his drugs, they don’t know how to deal with the withdrawal of the crack cocaine of cheap illegal immigrant labor. They go through withdrawals and thrash around looking for some similar substitute. Going through cold turkey altogether, going clean and hiring back mostly-White legal American workers at union jobs is not even contemplated. They’re hooked on crack. Illegal alien crack.
*When I say mostly-White workforce, I am speaking from my own biases. My working class friends who got screwed by illegals are overwhelmingly White. That’s not because I’m racist; it just represents the crowd I run with. I’d like to point out that the record shows that Blacks, especially Black men, make very good factory workers.
After World War 2, many Blacks moved from the South to the North to work in factories. As far as I can tell, the record shows that these Black men did a good job at their often-unionized factory jobs. Although young Black men have gotten a sense of entitlement lately, I still think that union jobs paying $20 an hour and up would appeal to many Black men nowadays, young and older.
I have noticed that Blacks tend to side with the illegals, possibly due to bonding with a another group they sense as oppressed by Whites. If you have read my post above, I suggest they do this at their peril and to the harm of their self-interests. Blacks need to start thinking about what’s good for Black folks, not making common cause with fellow non-Whites.

Transcript of Reason Radio Interview with Me on October 13, 2010

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it.
Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly.
This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.”
Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies.
Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this.
Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy.
Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of.
Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents.
Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country.
Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship?
Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones.
Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship.
Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews.
Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties.
Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard.
Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are.
Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are?
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay!
Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person.
Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so…
Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem.
Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic?
Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic.
Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem?
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems.
Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally.
Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million?
Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high.
Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap.
Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating?
Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!”
Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist.
Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work.
Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it.
But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test.
Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see?
Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway!
Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense.
Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism!
Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence.
Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem.
Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people?
Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time.
Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen!
Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it?
Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing.
Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school.
Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse.
Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there.
There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school?
Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way.
Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities.
Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city!
Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!”
Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical?
Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country.
Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics?
Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!”
Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous.
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe.
Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans.
Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist.
Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out…
Robert Lindsay: No, no, no…
Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…”
Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble.
Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White?
Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon.
Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore.
One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school.
Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap.
Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.
But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.”
Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution.
Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals.
Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty.
Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here.
Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals.
Robert Lindsay: First things first.
Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable…
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it.
Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them.
Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen?
Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.
I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood!
Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s.
Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture.
Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people.
Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure.
Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap.
Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants!
Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants.
If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body.
But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that.
The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional.
Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual.
Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines.
For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people.
Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore.
Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person.
Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment.
Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t.
Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit.
Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything.
Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model.
Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses?
Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources.
Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes.
Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster.
Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes.
Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert.
Robert Lindsay: Sure.

L-1 Visas, Evil Stepchildren of the Hindu 1-B Visas

Due to crackdowns on Hindu 1-B visas, US corporations have decided to use another loophole called the L-1 visa. With the L-1 visa, the worker is simply hired overseas. Then the overseas worker is transferred to the US, where they work at 1/3 the wages of a US worker. The US worker, in the familiar scenario, is forced to train his replacement. Then he is fired and replaced by some clown from somewhere in Asia.
These are the folks, the plutocrats, that James Schipper recently said in the comments section we should not be offending too much. We have to give them what they want. Otherwise? Otherwise they will stop investing. I really don’t know what to say about this.
I want to get rid of most all of the Hindu 1-B’s. Then I want to go after all of the L-1 visas.
The Tea Partiers never met a Hindu 1-B or L-1 Visa holder they did not love with all of their heart. We know this because the Tea Partiers support Corporate America to the hilt.
Corporate America ruined the US and nearly the world economy.
Corporate America is responsible for the economic downturn and the fact that standard fiscal measures are not working well to get us out of it.
Stimulus spending and loose money will only have so much effect when corporations are not hiring Americans anymore, or when corporations have so destroyed good US union wages that consumer demand has been quashed by shit wages.
The current downturn is demand-driven. There is a lack of consumer demand. The low demand is due to decades of Hindu 1-B and L-1 Visas, offshoring, hiring of illegal immigrants, and consistent smashing down of the wages of the remaining workers.
Fordism said you paid your Ford workers enough so they could afford to buy one of the cars they were building. Fordism is dead and gone.
Until there is a revival of US demand, that is, until high paying jobs come home from overseas or out of the hands of Hindu job thief invaders, or until wages of US workers start rising, the dead economy will continue to flounder.
Republican economic policy is all supply side, all the time. This cannot possibly do anything to fix a broken economy. US businesses are sitting on a mountain of cash. We have had 30 years of supply side economics. It hasn’t worked in any one of those 30 years, and it’s not working now. It’s not going to work in the future either. Businesses are not hiring because they don’t have any customers. Giving them more mountains of cash to sit on is not going to bring one more customer into their businesses. So Republican economic plans cannot possibly do anything do bring back customers. It can’t work even on paper.
The New York Times and other fonts of MSM evil have been writing a lot of articles lately saying essentially, “Get used to permanent 10% unemployment.” This is why. The jobs are gone and they aren’t coming back. The class making out like bandits could care less, so nothing will be done to rectify the matter. Bottom line: the ruling class of America, that is, the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class, have decided that 10% unemployment into the forseeable future is the way things are going to be. They will continue making out like bandits, so it’s no skin off their backs.
By the way, the stimulus did work as expected, so I am told. The degree to which even stimulus spending won’t work as expected anymore because no one is hiring any Americans anymore at living wages remains to be seen, but it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the stimulus spending model. Unlike neoliberalism, Keynesian economics actually works. It’s been proven over and over.
I don’t have too many solutions on this blog.
For starters though:

  1. Radically cut back, or get rid of, Hindu 1-B visas.
  2. Get rid of L-1 visas altogether.
  3. Look into R-1 visas (apparently another outrageous scam whereby foreigners are imported to do “seasonal” work that “Americans won’t do”).
  4. Keep deporting illegals, and start some major crackdowns on employers through the use of E-Verify program, which Obama has refused to implement.

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.

Hispanic Scholarship Fund is Racist!

Repost from the old site.

So says the illegal alien students at UCLA.

Why, you may ask? They discriminate against Whites? They can’t stand Blacks? Nothing so mundane.

So what diabolical crime did they commit?

If you’re an illegal alien, you don’t get a damned scholarship!

Oh, boo hoo!

Well, good for them.

As of today, I am on record as supporting the Hispanic Scholarship Fund 100%. Surely there are many legal Hispanic immigrants and Hispanic citizens who come from modest means, yet show great promise as potential university students. An organization like this helps poor, bright students to achieve their dreams and be an asset to society in spite of our criminally expensive post-secondary system.

The Problem with “White Countries for Everyone”

In the comments section for the Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone! post, Erranter, a new commenter who is one of my smartest commenter, writes:

So, what can you do?

I really doubt my Numbers USA faxes have had much effect.

In fact, I’m beginning to accept the fact that “diversity is the future”. It won’t be all that bad. I look around at kids and see all colors playing together like never before. Sure, the multiculturalist philosophy has infiltrated our schools and brought a great deal of mediocrity, but without the myth of racial equality, wouldn’t there just be continuous conflict?

It seems necessary at this point, especially in CA where over half our population is non-white. I mean, you can’t tell 12 yr old that certain ones of them have higher IQs. And I’m not about to start deporting people en mass. I’d just like to see a drastic decrease in immigration, and mostly for population stabilization and not white preservation.

Sure, the average might go down a little bit but I never had much in common with the average and there will still be smart people here and there. Might be a little bit rarer, but oh well. We don’t breed. It’s our fault. It’s not like they’re doing anything wrong by being dumb. They can still be moral, helpful people, so long as they’re educated.

I mainly fear that the tribe will take over and all smart people will be taken out of positions of power due to excessive affirmative action in govt. Now that would be a disaster. As long as we have wise leadership we can get by. Human history is just getting by anyway. There’s always new problems.

Also, white American culture has shot itself in the foot because it readily has given up its culture and heritage for the sake of materialism and money. It’s not like people are listening to Bach and Beethoven and discussing Schopenhauer and Descartes in these little all-white towns. They might be quainter and cleaner than New York, but they tend to be culturally bankrupt and prefer it that way. Urbanity is hypocritical but it offers you a wider view of life.

This is probably just a typical liberal argument. Suffice it to say I still get pissed off driving through Oakland, Stockton, Richmond . . . (I could go on) and any other urban hellhole brought about by stupid, unrealistic policy.

As far as deporting people, the illegals have to go. I’m not interested in deporting anyone else.

The reason for the title is the hypocrisy of it all. The White elites, and of course, the rest of the world, have decided that White countries, and only White countries, need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites for a variety of reasons. Diversity, anti-racism, bla bla. But it’s only White countries that need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites in the name of diversity and anti-racism. Nowhere else on Earth is this invasion necessary. Only in White countries. What’s up with that?

The tipping point in Detroit was 20% Black. All the way up to 20% Black, things were quite manageable in Detroit. The crime rate only increased a bit at 10% Black. Even at 20% Black, it was not much higher. But after 20% Black, the crime rate simply exploded exponentially. It’s reasonable to assume that Detroit had a carrying capacity of 20% Black and not much more.

This goes along with my philosophy of, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” Mass concentrations of large numbers of Blacks in the US do not seem to be a good idea either for Blacks or for anyone else. Black culture in all its worst aspects takes over and the place goes to shit.

I don’t mind a little diversity. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-30% non-White. To me, that was “normal.” It was not objectionable in any way. But now I live in a California that is 58% non-White. Whole new ballgame, and I don’t like it. A simple doubling of that minority % made all the difference in the world. Further, I enjoyed being a majority. Going from a majority to a minority is one Hell of a shitty feeling. It’s understandable that any humans would resist that.

Right now, I drive through town after town that looks and feels like it is a part of Mexico. There is a part of Los Angeles stretching for miles that looks and feels like San Salvador. In the San Gabriel Valley, you can drive for what seems like 10-20 miles through what looks like Taipei or Hong Kong. Most places in the world that look like downtown L.A. require a passport to get into them.

Here in California, we’ve always had immigration. The Mexicans, Blacks, Latin Americans, Samoans, East Indians, Filipinos, and Chinese are an integral part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start, or maybe 20-70 years afterwards. They’re part of the neighborhood. But for most of my lifetime, the immigration did not come in floods. I could go back to 300-400,000 legal immigrants a year no problem.

On the other hand, mass immigration to California, legal and illegal, has quite simply gone insane. It feels like we’ve been hit by a non-White foreigner tidal wave here. We never voted on this. No one ever asked our opinion on whether we wanted to be Foreigner Tsunamied or not. If put to a vote, most of us would have voted against it. We California Whites got race-replaced in our own homeland. Try it sometime. It doesn’t feel so good. Not only that, but the race replacement of California Whites has not led to a better California. Instead, it’s fucked up the whole state.

Many Blacks speak out in favor of turning the US into the United Nations. I’d like to ask them, “What exactly is in this for you?” How are you benefitting from the US being turned into a living zoo of Homo Sapiens? And I’d like to point out that we US Whites have been better to you Blacks than any of these immigrants replacing us will be.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

This article was originally posted on VDARE. I am reposting it here for your edification. I don’t agree with everything here. For instance, I support the education of illegal alien kids, and I support treatment of illegal aliens in emergency rooms.

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced the anti-illegal alien SB 1070, indicated he would like to introduce a bill to deny birthright citizenship on the state level. Legislation is already pending in Texas and Oklahoma plans on following suit as well. A number of U.S. Senate Candidates, including Rand Paul, are making birthright citizenship an issue during the campaign. A June 3 Rasmussen poll found that 58% of US voters opposed giving birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens while only 33% supported it.

In the past, the usual suspects just dismissed birthright citizenship as a fringe issue. But now they are getting worried there appears to be a concerted attempt to push back.

Recently, both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune ran simultaneous Op Eds defending birthright citizenship—by Harvard Professor Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively.

Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.


Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to prohibiting the detention of illegal aliens who have children(any children, not just American citizen children)except in “exceptional circumstances.” [H.R. 4321. Title I, Sec. 162]


Myth 2: Birthright citizenship does not encourage illegal immigration

Chapman argues:

“One study cited in Peter Brimelow’s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim.

It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than 4%.

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.


Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]


Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making ‘False Claims’ Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]


Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship.

And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • more state laws;
  • a moratorium on immigration, and
  • abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Source: VDARE.com.

African Immigrants in Europe – Is The Camp Of The Saints Coming True?

In the comments section, the brilliant James Schipper notes:

Some white countries are not very attractive, but whites can create attractive places, while so far we have not seen one black-dominated country that even remotely resembles Switzerland. This means that, it there is freedom of movement between black-dominated and white-dominated countries, there will be a massive flow from the former to the latter.

Europe has now around 700 million people and low fertility while black Africa has around 800 million and high fertility. Already there is constant illegal immigration from Africa into Europe. If nothing is done to stop this, Europe may eventually become a mainly black continent. I think that the white nationalists are quite right to warn about that.

James’ comment is absolutely right-on. This is exactly what is occurring in Southern Europe as we speak. He’s also correct that only the WN’s and the Right seem to be raising a fuss about it.

The entire European Left has gone insane on this question, and the Far Left, such as Italian Maoists who regularly send me communiques, are the most deranged of all. The Italian Maoists’ main issue seems to be to let all of the African illegal immigrants stay in Italy and get legalized. They’re obviously pro-Open Borders as the whole Western Far Left is. So they’re basically advocating a mass invasion of Italy by Black Africa, at which point Italy will become unrecognizable and will transition to a Black country. I can’t put into words what a terrible idea this is.

To which tulio responded that most Africans want to stay in Africa, and there are probably more Whites in Africa than Africans in Europe. Sure, but the Whites in Africa are not a problem and if anything, probably help the place out. Mass movement of poor, uneducated Africans into Europe is another matter altogether.

So the fact the flow goes in both directions is sort of irrelevant as it’s good in one direction for the hosts and bad in the other.

Clearly, not all Africans in Europe are bad news. A friend of mine is from Togo. He is one of the most brilliant people I have ever known, and he is Black as the night. He went to Morocco, got a degree there (and had a great time as a Catholic in a Muslim country) then went to France since he spoke French. He went to more college classes in France and graduated with honors. He was instantly snapped up by an IT firm.

This guy is so smart that he regularly works with MIT graduate students in computer science on IT stuff that is so cutting edge that I can’t make heads or tails of it. He now has a nice job in Brittany, France, and he is usually in a corporate meeting of some sort. He’s also been very popular with the White girls in France, but that’s another matter. He managed to get his sister into France too. Guys like Coco are great for France, but most Africans in Europe are not like this guy.

It’s true that most Blacks are staying in Africa, but African (Black African, not North African) immigration mostly to Southern Europe is seriously out of control. It’s kind of sad in a way because a lot of them are coming on boats, and they have to turn them back. The boats are coming to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Malta, etc. Malta at this point is so overrun it’s almost a disaster zone. Black Africans are all over Ibiza, filling up the Internet cafes with Nigerian scammers. Almost all of the Black Africans in these cafes are Nigerian criminals.

The Black African population in Italy in Greece is a huge problem like the illegal Hispanics in the US. The countries are dominated by liberal fuckheads so they don’t want to kick them out, but the Africans can’t really live there legally. Everyone knows they are illegals, but no one really does anything about it. Kind of like this stupid-ass country! A lot of the Africans are just squatters and whatnot. Many of the Nigerians have formed criminal gangs in Italy, where the Mafia is now whacking them off as competition.

The Europeans are too nice for their own good, kind of like us.

Mass camps of immigrants are in the north of France trying to make it to the UK, where the welfare pickings are a lot better. They periodically make mad rushes for the boats to the UK. Police come in and tear down the illegal camps, but they set them right back up again. Black Africans in France are already a serious problem, and they are committing tons of crime, especially rape, including gang rape (the Black and Muslim specialty crime).

It’s sad and pitiful that these boats are heading to Europe but they really need to be turned back. Have you heard of the book The Camp of the Saints? It really is something like that, and it’s happening as I write this.

In West African nations like Senegal, boats regularly leave for Spain and Portugal.

As an aside, White nationalists like to ridicule Africans by saying that they were too stupid to even figure out how to get to Madagascar, but this is apparently not true. They did get to Madagascar a long time ago, but then I guess they forgot how to build boats to go there anymore.

That is, there was an ancient hunter gatherer population of Blacks (Mikea) who could only have gotten there by boats when the Indonesians landed, but the more modern agricultural Blacks in Africa at the time did not have the maritime knowledge to figure out how to get there.

At any rate, my point is these historical arguments are sort of stupid. Who the F cares how backwards East Africans were 1,700 years ago?

My point is that nowadays anyway, even totally backwards West African Blacks are capable of building and steering boats that take them all the way from Senegal to Spain. Not bad. The take home point is that pre-contact Africans may have been backwards, but post-contact Blacks are much more advanced. That they are more advanced due to contact with other cultures or even White cultures is not that relevant. Cultural diffusion happens!

Bruce Springsteen, "This Land is Your Land"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuc4BI5NWU&fmt=18]
A truly great video of Bruce Springsteen doing one of the greatest (or as Springsteen says, the greatest) songs about America ever written, This Land is Your Land. No matter what you think of Springsteen, I think you have to admit that this is one Hell of a killer rendition. I like it better than Guthrie’s original and a lot of the folkie renditions by Pete Seeger, Alto Guthrie and others.
The song was written by Leftist (Communist, really) Woody Guthrie in February 1940. This is one of those songs that really captures the essence of what America is really all about.
It’s a song that all real Americans, that means not only Whites but Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and any other assimilated groups, should embrace. If you can’t embrace this song because your heart is still stuck in Calcutta or Tijuana or Guatemala City or San Salvador or wherever, you’re not assimilated. That’s all there is to it.
Springsteen’s albums, especially from the 1980’s, really hearken back to a working class White American heartland that seems to be dead and gone.
Driving through California towns that have been turned by the 100’s into Tijuana or San Salvador, the last thing I want to sing is This Land is Your Land. If there was another version called This Land is Not Your Land, I would sing that instead. Increasingly, this feels like elegiac requiem from an America gone and never to return. Oh well, we still have memories, some of us do anyway.
It’s a beautiful song anyway, and it’s actually a very leftwing song (hardly anyone ever seems to recognize this), especially the “forgotten lyrics”, one stanza of which Springsteen revives for this rendition. Most Americans have never heard of the “forgotten stanzas” since they are never sung in the version taught to schoolkids.
Most people have not analyzed this song very well. In order to do so, you need to understand Guthrie’s life, for the song is actually autobiographical. It was written during WW2, but it is about events that took place 9 years earlier when he was 19 years old. Guthrie left  Texas in the midst of the Dust Bowl that laid millions of acres of prime farmland to waste.
The refugees moved West to California, in particular the Central Valley farming region, where they became known as the “Okies.” There are still many White descendants of these Okies here in the Central Valley where I live. They are sort of “redneck” and working class, but I don’t mind them that much.
There is one that lives in my apartment complex and at first I did not like him too much. I complained to a Black female friend about him, and she said, “Oh, he’s an Okie! They’re worse than niggers!
The movement of Okies to the Central Valley was not an easy one and it was memorialized for all time in John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck is one of the all-time great California writers and Grapes is a fantastic American novel.
It was also made into a film but I never checked it out. But check out the book Grapes if you ever get a chance. Steinbeck also wrote some other acclaimed books, but I forget if I read them or not. They all dealt with California.

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

This stanza is simply a paean to America and in particular its natural beauty.

As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me.

This stanza is about Guthrie and his young wife heading out from Oklahoma to California along the famous Highway 66, a great American highway long memorialized in many folk, country, country-rock, rockabilly, etc. songs. The golden valley was California’s Central Valley, one of the most productive agricultural regions on Earth.

I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
While all around me a voice was sounding
Saying this land was made for you and me.

This stanza is again about the trek from Oklahoma to California. The “sparkling sands of her diamond deserts” refers to the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona that the highway passes through.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,
This land was made for you and me.

This part is a little hard to understand. “…The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling” must refer to the wheat fields of Oklahoma and the dust clouds of the Dust Bowl. But this line, “A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting” must refer to California. There’s a lot of fog in the Central Valley of California, and there is not much fog in Oklahoma, unless maybe you are near a lake.

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.

This is one of the famous “missing stanzas” that (with variations) is not often played, but sometimes it is, especially by the folkies. This is obviously a Commie dig at private property rights in the US. Such rights were particularly belligerently enforced in 1930’s America, when labor and environmental laws basically did not even exist.

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.

This stanza is almost never heard, but it sounds pretty nice. The second half of it below is a lot more common.

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I’d seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?

This is a very radical verse, apparently referring to the relief offices patronized by the Okies in Depression-era California. It’s interesting that almost no Americans have ever heard of these lines. This stanza is played by Springsteen, to his credit, above.