In Praise of an Immigrant: Jules Dervaes, Sr.

Of all of the stories in this week’s Frontierist News Roundup the most important story involves an immigrant to the US who is worthy of praise, the Belgian father (and mother) of Jules Dervaes, Sr.:
Jules Dervaes, Sr.
For good reason, especially nowadays, we tend to think of “immigrants” in negative terms even though Salter’s preliminary model of ethnic genetic interests indicates immigrants are positive if they increase carrying capacity of their newly adopted land in an amount more than commensurate to the reduction of ethnic genetic interests of the existing population. In this respect the late Jules Dervaes, Sr. is clearly the son of a model immigrant to the US—one who points to the kind of immigration policy any people interested in being evolutionarily adaptive should adopt.

A gold-standard example of Salter’s carrying capacity-based immigration ethic is the profound increase in carrying capacity that occurred during the settlement of the North American Midwest prairies by Europeans during the 1800s (contrasted with the, possibly apocryphal, stories that New England area Amerindian tribes had higher carrying capacity than the Puritans). Another, less obvious, example might be the introduction of drip irrigation from England’s greenhouses to the deserts of the Middle East by Zionist Jews (no, I’m not hostile to all “Zionists” per se). European settlers of Rhodesia have been pointed to as another prime example of this—although, particularly in the tropics, the competition between biodiversity and humanity becomes problematic from an environmental ethics standpoint.

What the father of Jules Dervaes, Sr. did was leave a legacy of increased carrying capacity that—if even partially adopted by the “native” population—pays so richly for his small impact on the ethnic genetic interests that it puts all but the North American Midwestern prairie farmers to shame. He did so via his son, Jules Dervaes, Sr. and grandson, Jules Dervaes, Jr. Dervaes Jr. has, during the time of the American Clearances—when the formerly agrarian population was being coerced into giving up their land in exchange for jobs that were supposed to be secure as subsistence support against the, then prohibited, third world immigration assault on real wage levels—found a way to produce enough food to support a family on a piece of land small enough that many of the deracinated, urbanized and then betrayed descendants of the European farmers might be able to afford it: 3 tons of food each year from just one tenth of an acre.

Now, agreed, there are practical problems that limit the real impact of this achievement—things like the fact that control over land use, particularly by land lords and zoning commissions—render it impossible for many poorer urbanized victims of The Clearances to effectively utilize these agricultural techniques.

Nevertheless, when the great diaspora from the cities occurs due to the failure of the corrupt system, and desperate families find themselves begging for the temporary use of a small lot in the country from land barons, barons protected by misguided “law” enforcement officials, some families that might otherwise starve or be killed by the local Sheriffs may not have to watch their children die in front of them to protect the “property rights” of the baronage.

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 02:04 PM in
Comments (3) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Geronimo Sitting Bull on February 03, 2007, 03:31 PM | #

Salter:

“Imagine that in 1600, before they sold Manhattan, American Indians had been offered an informed choice between two futures in the year 2000. One future was the present United States with a level of economic development unattainable without the efforts of millions of settlers and immigrants from Europe. The other was one or more Indian nations in possession of the present area of the United States but with economies less developed than at present. Which would they have chosen if they had valued ethnic genetic interests? A temporary delay, even one of decades or centuries, in acquiring some skill or institution would seem a weak excuse for sacrificing the future of all succeeding generations.”

Posted by ben tillman on February 09, 2007, 07:16 PM | #

...3 tons of food each year from just one tenth of an acre.

But he’s also availing himself of positive externalities flowing from the petroleum-based culture. He gets manure from stables because others don’t need it, for instance. Still, this is encouraging.

Posted by ben tillman on February 09, 2007, 07:18 PM | #

...when the great diaspora from the cities occurs due to the failure of the corrupt system, and desperate families find themselves begging for the temporary use of a small lot in the country from land barons, barons protected by misguided “law” enforcement officials….

Down in Dimmit County, Texas, they say trial lawyers are buying up all the land. It will be interesting to see how things shake out, but you’re right—we muct be prepared, technologically and otherwise.

Next entry: War In Defense of the National Union

Previous entry: Nailing the “shiksa” label at Mercury News

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa