One of the flaws of Federalism, aka “States rights”, as it is normally conceived is the presumption of unlimited interstate migration.  This flaw in Federalism arose because during the founding of the US, land was cheap, labor was scarce and what labor there was tended to be from the same general human ecology:  northwestern Europe.  All of these assumptions are now false.

As a consequence, Federalism, so conceived, is now Vectorism:  The promotion of virulence via horizontal transmission of diseases via highly migratory vectors.  In this case the diseases are mobile human ecologies infecting stationary human ecologies represented by States within the Federation.

To illustrate the problem is relatively straight forward:

Let’s say that some but not all States provide generous welfare benefits to their citizens because those citizens are, for whatever reason, not prone to cheat the welfare system, while other States are not so generous because their citizens are, again for whatever reason, prone to cheat the welfare system.  This is analogous to the current situation in which some countries, such as the US, have had generous welfare systems which subsidize the immigrant laborers coming to the US thereby subsidizing employers and displacing native citizens.

Such unlimited migration is admitted by most relatively rational libertarians (such as Ron Paul and Milton Friedman) to result in an even more rapid collapse of human social capital of the welfare state than would occur within an isolated welfare state.  As with any “borderless” society, the main problem with free movement within a Federation of States is the evolution of virulence via horizontal transmission—and the more “diversity” of migrants the greater the likelihood that virulent human ecologies will discover ways to exploit this vulnerability.

Dr. Paul may believe that this is all well and good because it simply means that no State will experiment with State-supported welfare—such State-supported welfare being essentially an “evil” within his model of libertarianism.  However, vectorism is not limited to such constructs as welfare systems in its destructive potential.  It includes, also, more traditional infections such as we are now seeing with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)—a killer bacteria which prevalence is continually being underestimated and that is now thought to kill more people than HIV.  Normally, a libertarian politician like might treat MRSA as just another case of environmental degradation—and dismiss it with some claim that all you need to do is resort to tort law or some other measure to internalize the cost of the damage from the pathogen to the vectors, such as hospitals where most such infections are acquired.  But Ron Paul is a doctor.  He is cursed with a depth of understanding of diseases that doesn’t let him simply ignore certain public health consequences of his ideology. Let’s look at this public health problem from the standpoint of the member States of a Federation:

A Federalist government that prohibits States from controlling their borders is, in essence, forcing those States to admit the entry of disease vectors.  The entry of one MRSA vector to a State can result in enormous cost increases to the hospitals of that State by virtue of the fact that those hospitals become liable, under tort law, for the deaths caused by MRSA acquired in their hospitals.  They have to make extra investments, not only in infrastructure, but in on-going operations, to contain the threat of MRSA to their patients. 

Where do they turn for recovery of these expenses? 

The vector who entered the State with MRSA?  He may be broke and the costs to the hospitals may be astronomical. 

The Federalist government itself due to its enforcement of “freedom” of interstate movement?  Where is the Federalist government going to come up with the revenue to pay for this “freedom”?

While I appreciate many of the positions of Dr. Paul, I do appreciate even more that if such questions are put to him, the fact that he is a doctor may force him to pause for just a moment and think it possible he may be wrong about Federalism as conceived by Founders who had the luxury of much land and low diversity of good people within their Federation.

An e-mail from wintermute:-

Seems Tom Fleming over at Chronicles has solved one of our long standing problems - a better replacement for the word/concept ‘racism’ than ‘racialism’: Genophilia.

Prior to this usage, the instinctive love of race and family has never had a word to describe it that had a positive connotation.

It would probably be of great assistance to our Cause if you gentlemen were to introduce the word into general circulation. It will make a nice bookend to go with Fred Scrooby’s “race replacement”.

Well, never mind Fleming.  This term seems to have been coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883.  It is from the Greek ????? (meaning birth, race, kind) and philia.  It appeared once on Stormfront in 2003 (without any realisation of its linguistic potential), and was used by Fleming a year later in his essay The Morality of Everyday Life.

That aside, I agree with wintermute that we should incorporate it into our discourse.  But a poster to Conservative phora - someone who goes under the monicle Bede, has got there ahead of us.  Good luck to him with it ... and to us all, actually.

The BBC has carried a report of research by something called Migration Integration Policy Index.  MIPEX, as it is known, is:-

... a handy quick-reference guide to migrant integration policies in Europe.  Using over 100 policy indicators it scores countries on six key dimensions of integration policy.

Policies are given a 1-3 score.  A score of 3 signifies that a policy sets the most favourable conditions for migrant integration.  Here best practice is defined by European Directives, Council of Europe Conventions and NGO proposals.

This, then, is a measure of government-sanctioned national suicide.

The six “key dimensions of integration policy are: long-term residence, nationality laws, discrimination laws, family reunion, labour market access, political rights.  Taken together, they provide this snapshot of the “success” of the member countries of the European Union in changing their own people.  Literally.

For the BBC, of course, the “success” of the British government - 9th place in the table - is not really good enough:-

Overall, researchers said that migrants living in the UK could face long delays to getting a permanent right to stay. But they added that once that wait was over, migrants did not face language tests or integration courses.

People seeking to take the final step and become a British citizen must pass a language course and take a test on British life.

The UK’s internationally-recognised policies to combat discrimination scored highly - but were also said to be weak because of poor enforcement.

The UK lost marks because of a specific law to strip nationality from immigrants - a measure used only once so far in relation to jailed radical cleric Abu Hamza.

The study found that settled migrants experienced mixed levels of political rights in the UK.

While they had recognisable political liberties, they had fewer rights to vote in national or local elections compared with other nations, despite being tax payers.

The UK was also criticised for not consulting specialist migrant bodies, unlike some other European nations.

READ MORE...

For those unaware of the current shenanigans being pulled by US politicos—Rep. Charles Rangel is about to try to pull a Dan Rostenkowski on the US: It is time to do another fake “tax reform” to get people conned into suppressing their sense of dread, foreboding and doom.  People associate these negative feelings, for good reason, with paying their “fair share” to the IRS.  So politicos pretend to address these negative feelings by “simplifying” the collection of income taxes for a government that is replacing white people (code word “middle class”) through a combination of centralization of wealth in favor of a small percentage of “white”—largely Jewish—families that promote immigration and the welfare state, and centralization of government in favor of a fecund non-white populous that promotes immigration and the welfare state.  This replacement of the white population, in combination with the New Media’s encroachment on the Old Media is creating an unstable situation.  Democrats like Rangel are pretending to address this with “tax reform” but they have a problem:  Ron Paul is more effectively addressing the reaction to the replacement of whites.  Candidate Paul is doing this by proposing the elimination of the income tax and massive elimination of government programs.  Since the centralization of government is even more of a culprit than is centralization of wealth in the replacement of the white population, he is getting major traction during this time of building revolutionary sentiment.

What follows is my submission to the above linked “Politico”, an online news and forum site run by a former political editor of the Washington Post, regarding this issue.  Keep in mind the target audience isn’t MR:

READ MORE...

Quick, before these stories are removed from the net out of embarrassment see this story from Australia’s widest circulating newspaper, then this reposting of that story by the FreeRepublic.com Fred Thompson supporters, then this riotously funny thread on “FredThompsonForums.com”.

Words can’t describe the humor…  but I’ll try…

Basically, anyone with a modicum of perception sees that centralized old media manipulates public opinion creating fake grassroots support of “democratically elected” candidates.  This has been the dominant form of politics for the 20th century and we’re only now starting to see the facade cracking under stress from the real grassroots Ron Paul campaign arising from the pent up disenfranchisement finding expression via decentralized new media.  So to call a TV personality’s support a real grassroots campaign while calling Ron Paul’s support a fake grassroots campaign is the height of hubris ... and there stops my description of the humor leaving the rest for the kind and gentle reader.

Two points before I comment on David B’s latest nonsense about Salter’s work.

JW Holliday

- - - - - - - - -—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DB: “I also take the opportunity now to emphasise something I should have done previously: that differences in gene frequencies between human populations are in general fluid and transitory.  Since Salter’s aim is to preserve existing differences, this is fatal to his doctrines. Let us consider how such differences arise.”

I object to David B’s seeming implication that the processes he cites will diminish differences between groups over time, making preservation (“Salterism”) irrelevant.  Actually, in the absence of the mass migration/miscegenation favored by GNXP, drift and selection may actually increase genetic differences between population groups.  Further, looking at the spectrum of genetic differences that separate groups, rather than just changes in specific alleles, the racial groups that exist today have exhibited significant differences from each other for thousands of years, and will continue to exhibit such differences into the future, in the absence of the panmixia advocated by GNXPers (at least, advocated for Western peoples; e.g., “Jeurasian” fantasies, etc).

Individuals from Europe who had contact with members of other racial groups in, say, the classical world, noticed the same differences in phenotype (which are heritable) that we note today. The same within Europe; in the Greco-Roman world, differences of those peoples with the Germans and Gauls were noted.  As discussed by Rushton and others, Islamic scholars of the past commented on the intellectual and behavioral characteristics of sub-Saharan Africans in a manner that would seem quite familiar to a reader of “Majority Rights” today.  I am sure that J Richards can tell us of skeletal evidence that demonstrates that racial differences we see today were in existence in the distant past.  I am also sure that, if Paabo’s Neanderthal project works, and similar techniques are utilized to assay the autosomal genomes of more recent human ancient remains, genetic differences between population groups that are observed today will also be observed in their ancestors - albeit that the exact extent of these differences may change over time, and certainly not always in the direction of lessened differences, as studies on recent selection suggest.

If Salter’s vision of “Universal Nationalism” comes to pass, there is no reason to believe that there will be any significant diminution of group differences and/or that the genomes of the different races will converge over time.  Note as well that, since genetic interest is a relative concept, any degree of distinctiveness between groups, even IF such is less than that of today, will contribute to differences of genetic interest.  Even siblings within a family have different genetic interests from each other, certainly, population groups will always have such differences in the future.

READ MORE...

At Kevin MacDonald’s request, and after having reviewed it myself, I hereby point MR readers to The Occidental Observer.

Perhaps blacks are recognizing this government is about to self-destruct and are staying home to build multi-ethnic gangs in the midwest using young, mother-raised, white boys (and girls) to do their dirty work and be their public faces.  After all, they’ll need cannon fodder when race wars break out.