|
|
|
Can We Address the Root Causes of Immigration? I have certainly heard a lot of liberals claim that if we just give a lot of foreign aid to the Third world, then no one would have a reason to immigrate to America. Marcus Epstein has an interesting article debunking this concept. He gives a number of reasons why this policy will not work, but ignores perhaps the most important one: IQ. At the end he says “Cultural, historical, and other factors that cannot be changed anytime soon will probably mean that some countries are always going to be poorer than other countries” Perhaps he meant to include IQ in “other”. In IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn and Vanhannen look at the IQ’s of the countries where post-1965 immigrants, and the trend is clear: low IQ immigrants flood into High IQ countries. Low IQ countries can never be close to as prosperous as high IQ countries, and immigrants from every failed society will always want to come to prosperous countries. No amount of foreign aid, humanitarian intervention or government reform will change that. Comments:2
Posted by John S Bolton on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:26 | # A special case to illustrate this levelling effect, would be to consider the results of free medical immigration, such that death rates and life expectancies were to be levelled throughout the world. In that circumstance, there could be no advancement of medical technology such as would allow for increase of maximum life expectancy in general, or relative to the diseases of old age. It should be easy to realize that this would cause a halt and an unprecedented reversal of the progress of medical technology, and yet that any who opposed it could be readily called selfish and racist, xenophobic, etc. Insidiously though, who will tell us that each move towards the ‘free medical immigration’ model, will have a corresponding portion of a slowing effect on the progress of medical technology? Basic interventions must exercise priority, with each increment of such immigration that is significant. A threshold is passed, beyond which lies the unconscionable backward leap of medicine. This only one field out of many, though; some similar process would operate in any other. 3
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:13 | # The root causes? I care not for the root causes lets deal with the reality - and that is a very hard thing to do. The multiculturals propaganda from all organs of society: public schools, media, universities, gov’t and etc… prevents an honest discussion of the problem. At this point, those that wish to save our heritage, customs, race or however you wish to say… must turn to extreme solutions. Obviously, even extreme solutions are not practicable in our current weakness. So, I advocate unifying and working with existing immigration control groups and using family and personal contacts to change consciousness. 4
Posted by john rackell on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:26 | # Alternative institutions are necessary. Regarding the distinction between willing to kill and willing to die here’s what some enterprising white student’s would face if they attempted to start a White Student organization. But starting White student organizations is a winner because the moral rights of Whites to organize ethnically is undeniable. Just weather the storm and do it!! One of the interesting points of the extracted student essay below is how it shows that merely being white is a provocation to ethnic minorities. The other, of course is the glib, self-satisfied justification of violence. So be it. <u>White Student Union idea a farcical notion</u> by Russell Contreras
But the killer of the day came at Diversity Panel discussion. During the discussion, someone in the audience pointed out that there is no white student umbrella group under the Council of Ethnic Organizations to complement the big five: the Hispanic Student Association, the Pan Afrikan People for Progressive Action, the Chinese Student Association, the Asian Student Association and the International Student Organization. She claimed that if a group of brave students wanted to start some sort of White Student Association, that there would be an uproar by all the others. According to this person, she felt that the whole idea of the controversy around the formation of a white student group was a terrible double standard and a touch of hypocrisy by those in opposition. The feelings she expressed are nothing new on college campuses. Some students from other universities have actually started a White Student Union to make this claim that ethnic student groups are in fact a hindrance, not a help. And as a result, many race battles have exploded (vandalism, posting of nasty fliers, etc.) The proponents of these white-based student groups argue that since we live in a color-blind society, this double standard against them should not exist and opponents should just get over it. Often quoting Martin Luther King (while he turns over in his grave), they claim that we should all be judged ... la, la, la, ... by the content of the character and not by the ... la, la, la. And then they cry for peace and racial unity. Sorry. Request denied. If a group of brave students decided to attempt this creation of a White Student Union under the Council of Ethnic Organizations, I would be the first one up in arms, disrupting their planning meetings and marching at their programs with a couple of vatos locos from the `hood. The mere idea is enough for me to feel threatened and gather up soldiers for future battles. And there are many reasons for this (history being one of them).” of 5
Posted by friedrich braun on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:45 | # “If a group of brave students decided to attempt this creation of a White Student Union under the Council of Ethnic Organizations, I would be the first one up in arms, disrupting their planning meetings and marching at their programs with a couple of vatos locos from the `hood. The mere idea is enough for me to feel threatened and gather up soldiers for future battles. And there are many reasons for this (history being one of them).” The threat of physical violence is a nice touch as well as the murky reference to “history.” What’s he talking about? I gather that he’s a Hispanic invader; hence, not only is he an ungrateful thug who has been allowed (foolishly) into the US, but is actually openly threatening (and all because they want a White students’s association? Now, it doesn’t take much to provoke minorities, i.e. simply being White and wanting to organize is an offence) the same White people who are overwhelmingly responsible for the society in which his family has settled. As to the physical threats, White men must stop acting like limp-wristed weaklings and pushovers. One way for the Whites to respond to the threats would be by telling Don Contreras: “Come on over anytime mother****, we’ll be waiting for you.” Whites have to start showing physical courage. 6
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:31 | # Yeah it’s interesting how often leftists imply violence and how often non-white activists imply a vengeance animus against whites. (“curiously,” all the touchstones they need are already forefront in the public consciousness; there’s no need for them to explain the threat or the grievance) I wonder if this has shown up on the SPLC’s radar? 7
Posted by john rackell on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:34 | # I gather that he’s a Hispanic invader; Well, his first name is ‘Russell’ which isn’t exactly ghetto or Hispanic. His self-identification seems all La Raza though. A White ethnic based organization on campus would be very polarizing which is beneficial and welcome. Lots of media coverage, lots of anti-white sloganeering and rhetoric, all heartfelt I’m sure but will redound against them. Btw he’s writing from University of Houston, in the newly majority minority state. Whites really need to wake up and hear the knives being ground on the sharpening stone. Even if the administration or student union denies a white ethnic club they will be put on the defensive trying to come up with an excuse. Even the meekest white might have his conscience pricked knowing that a fundamental right is denied him. But while the right never gets tested he can always convince himself it still exists when it doesn’t really. The trick is how to prevent such an organization if it came to pass from being infiltrated by anti-white whites. I haven’t been able to track down an existing White Student Club on college campuses though I’ve heard they do exist. There are lots of actions whites can take that put them on the moral high ground - and provoking the opposition’s hatred and their defense of a morally indefensible position should be our M.O. White men may be too pussified already, which is more lack of moral courage than a lack of physical courage. 8
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:34 | # One way for the Whites to respond to the threats would be by telling Don Contreras: “Come on over anytime mother****, we’ll be waiting for you. Why court trouble? Ignore them and defend yourself to the fullest. 9
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:40 | # The trick is how to prevent such an organization if it came to pass from being infiltrated by anti-white whites. Strong tribal memes, including rigid enforcement of certain behaviors (stay within the law, etc.,) by excommunication. 10
Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:03 | # “Why court trouble? Ignore them and defend yourself to the fullest.” The only people courting trouble are the ones threatening violence. They should know loud and clear that they won’t be able to indimidate you with such threats. If his bluffing, call his bluff, if his serious let him know that you’re unafraid and prepared. Otherwise you show weakness, which is the worst thing that White people can do. We’re in this predicament right now precisely because Whites are perceived (rightly) as weak, decadent, hedonistic degenerates eagerly signing theit own death warrants. A spent race. Letting themselves be invaded like no other people in world history. Drafting anti-White statutes against “racism”, setting up “anti-racist” institutions, committees, associations, etc., etc., etc. all diligently working against the ethnic interests of Whites and on behalf of the interests of aliens. It’s crazy and unbelievable. It must seem to invading foreigners like indigenous Whites have lost their collective minds and want to die…going as far as giving to their murderers the knife with which to slit their throats. Apologizing to all and sundry for being White. It’s hard to respect someone who refuses to even stand up for his rights. They feel nothing but contempt for Whites. I can’t blame them. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:18 | # “We’re in this predicament right now precisely because Whites are perceived (rightly) as weak, decadent, hedonistic degenerates eagerly signing theit own death warrants. A spent race. Letting themselves be invaded like no other people in world history. Drafting anti-White statutes against ‘racism,’ setting up ‘anti-racist’ institutions, committees, associations, etc., etc., etc. all diligently working against the ethnic interests of Whites and on behalf of the interests of aliens. It’s crazy and unbelievable. It must seem to invading foreigners like indigenous Whites have lost their collective minds and want to die…going as far as giving to their murderers the knife with which to slit their throats. Apologizing to all and sundry for being White. It’s hard to respect someone who refuses to even stand up for his rights. They feel nothing but contempt for Whites. I can’t blame them.” (—Friedrich Braun) Well said, and every word as true as true can be. Every word. 12
Posted by Stuka on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:22 | # One way for the Whites to respond to the threats would be by telling Don Contreras: “Come on over anytime mother****, we’ll be waiting for you.” Agreed, well said. 13
Posted by Anon on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:31 | # There is a fix and it is inevitable. Eventually there will be no welfare. This is the only fair and cuturally stable system in a multiculti country. In the future one of the major net effects of multiculturalism (not the only, of course) will be seen as precipitating the demise of the welfare state. As George Price might have noted. 14
Posted by Ventris on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:59 | # I can’t accept the view that a low average IQ is the main obstacle to the sort of goals in the third world represented by the Sierra Club. Certainly, it’s unlikely these countries will ever be comparably prosperous as the West, but I don’t see this as precluding simple sustainability. I don’t see that it requires a high average level of intelligence to live within your means, rather I think it’s a matter of self-awareness and confidence. If we were willing to take on the task, (a colossal and expensive one it would be, I warily admit) the right mixture of projects would include: - Funding proper education for the population at large, geared toward agriculture and the trades. A continent of shop kids The UN could align itself more interventionally as regards government competence.. efficient beauocracy as a new ‘human right’? It’s all or nothing in my view. For the past 50 years we have been sort of doing what we can without making the kind of committment necessary, laudable perhaps but really a non-strategy. I don’t think we can cite past efforts as proof that Africa and other impoverished nations are a lost cause. There is some evidence that many aid projects of the past have done more harm than good (patented seeds sold in East Africa come to mind). To the point, I would like to hear arguments as to why a low average IQ absolutely prevents Africans from sustainability. We are not talking about a tribe organically rising to become a High Civilisation but rather people being practically herded into farms and trades by the Western hand of benevolence. I am not unfamiliar with the relevant literature, but if someone could cite something for me to peruse I’d appreciate that. But as for immigration policy in general, I concur with Epstein’s arguments and what they suggest the real trouble is. If the ‘supply side’ strategy were indeed successful, it would absolutely have to coincide with a mutual understanding amongst all nations of the other, really more pressing, ethno-cultural reasons to limit mass migration. That will need to be the framework on which a coalition with economic and environmental concerns is built. 15
Posted by Andrew L on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:51 | # I read somewhere that NZ has a higher IQ per population than Australia, that must have been another Leftoid un-truth, well in a few years the way they are taking in 3rd worlder’s it will drop below Africa, if it has in real terms ever been above that, ha OW.THen they will be realy “The All Blacks” as well as Pacific Middle East and Wellington will become the new Mecca for the region. I kid you not, well maybe, Ahhhla The Left at work, another Nation destroyed. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:46 | # Ventris’ comment goes on and on about others needing to “show him” this and “show him” that. If you haven’t got a pair of eyes in your head, Ventris, no one can show you anything. The Negroes can’t run large farms, Ventris. You got that? No one has to “show you” anything; nor has anyone the time to spoonfeed you the latest current events in the world—or some elementary common sense. When they’ve finished you’ll just turn around and deny everything anyway, in typical leftoid fashion, and resume your boring leftoid drone as if nothing had been explained to you. Whenever the Negro governments kick white farmers off the farms the countries starve to death. The Negroes over there can run little stone-age subsistence farms—large vegetable gardens would be a more appropriate term for it—with the capacity to feed their families and perhaps, in a good year, a small handful of others in their community. They can’t run large modern farms. They’re unable to do that, Ventris, just as you are unable to interpret the current events you see going on in the world around you. You keep saying you don’t see why Negroes can’t theoretically subsist by being farmers and tradesmen. They can subsist—by being subsistence-level farmers and stone-age-level tradesmen and artisans. As for modern trades, how much demand is there for a plumber, electrician, glazier, mason, roofer, or carpenter in the typical African village? The demand is infinitessimal. Such tradesmen would find little or work. As for your drone about settling the West’s race-replacement immigration problem through “mutual understanding amongst all nations” and a supposed need to develop a “framework on which a coalition with economic and environmental concerns is built,” that’s pure leftoid hogwash. The West needs to take steps unilaterally and immediately to halt race-replacement regardless of what the “race-supplier nations” think or any other nations in the world think. Japan seems to be doing it just fine, thank you very much. You sound like nothing so much as a leftoid U.N. worshipper and denier of certain racial realities in the world until someone “proves” them to you. To those with eyes, Ventris, it’s been abundantly proven already. 17
Posted by Charles on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:47 | # Is this the same Russell Contreras who penned that racist little screed (above)? 1-281-447-1528, Houston, TX. I wonder. 18
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:51 | # In the future one of the major net effects of multiculturalism (not the only, of course) will be seen as precipitating the demise of the welfare state. I doubt it. It seems likely that access to and interpretation to history will be continue to be mediated by those with a vested interest in preventing such lessons from being drawn. 19
Posted by Ventris on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:51 | # Fred Scrooby Said: >>>You keep saying you don’t see why Negroes can’t theoretically subsist by being farmers and tradesmen. They can subsist—by being subsistence-level farmers and stone-age-level tradesmen and artisans
Japan is geopolitically in an environment where its neighbours and closest historical neighbours share most of its peoples perspectives. I agree theirs is a fine example but a situation very far from the reality we have to deal with.
As far as racial realities the entire premise of my argument has been based on an acceptance of generally low African intelligence and the desire for some form of international separatism. So I don’t really know what you’re talking about. 20
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:03 | # To the point, I would like to hear arguments as to why a low average IQ absolutely prevents Africans from sustainability. Sub-Saharan Africa has other deficiencies beyond its aggregate IQ. But that’s all beside the point. The more apposite question is, why does the answer to your question matter? Presumably because you think our resources should be devoted to an altruistic experiment…. Or from another perspective, does anyone even claim that low IQ prevents “sustainability” in Africa? We all will concede that the presence of white men as an oranizing force can produce “sustainable” African societies. Ultimately, you are arguing the same thing, that whites should take black Africans and mold them into societies—through infusions of goods, technology, organizational structures, political systems, etc. Which, I guess, leads to a final question—if you propose intervention to improve the plight of Africans, have you not conceded that the Africans themselves possess deficiencies that prevent them from achieving “sustainability”? 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:51 | # “The hope is that they will move up from independent subsistence to something more organised.” (—Ventris) OK, come back in a hundred thousand years: they may have reached that level by then. In fact, I’d say they almost certainly will have. (All right, all right, I was exaggerating, I admit—make that ten ... maybe fifteen thousand years ... Come back in, say, ten to fifteen thousand years, Ventris, and you might be onto something ...). “That goes toward creating confidence in their situation and removing one impetus for emigration.” This is a restatement of the leftist notion commonly shared by U.N. worshippers and others of that ilk that the only acceptable way to ameliorate the current West-wide race-replacement crisis is for whites to, for once in their lives, get their unbridled white-devil greed under control and permit—permit for the first time since the Negro Great-Zimbabwe Empire ruled the world, built Atlantis, Stonehenge, and the pyramids of Egypt, Mexico, the Yucatan, and Peru, and created single-handedly the Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Hebrew, Mayan, Aztec, and Inca cultures and societies, originally peopling them all exclusively with full-blooded Negroes such as Moses, King Solomon, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Cæsar, Cleopatra, Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. Augustine—if the whites would get their unbridled greed under control for the first time since Great Zimbabwe ruled the world and founded everything of value in the world, and permit the non-white living standard around the world to rise to a level of parity with that of whites, doing this by stopping the white practices of exploiting people of color, stealing people of color’s natural resources, raping people of color’s women, causing brain-drains of people of color’s scientists, Nobel Laureates, and other men of distinction (all Negroes, by the way ...) so that they leave countries of color and flock to white countries, never giving a fair price for people of color’s trade goods, and in so many other ways keeping them down—if whites would just stop doing this to people of color for the first time in history, and let people of color’s living standard rise to a level of parity with whites, there’d be no more impetus for people of color to immigrate en masse to white countries and the race-replacement problem would be solved. That’s what Ventris’ argument here sounds like a restatement of. Well, Ventris—I can think of other ways to approach the problem of race-replacement but hey, I’ll surely keep your idea in mind—but ... look, don’t quit your day job, OK? ... and ... oh yeah ... don’t call us, we’ll call you ... 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:06 | # “The most populous African countries are already more than 50% urbanised, and we can expect that population to grow substantially under a new corporate infrastructure. As you should well know there is no shortage of potential for resource industry Africa, and with an educated proletariat the cities might actually be able to function by a standard that could direct that kind of development, and run some semblance of a service economy. Educational reforms and an increase in corporate activity are quite dependent on each other.” (—Ventris) That’s a nice dream, Ventris. Problem is, there’s no sign whatsoever of anything even remotely like it happening. You may want to check out Keith Richburg’s <u>book</u> about what a hell hole the whole Sub-Sahara was, so much so he departed thanking his lucky stars on his knees that his Negro ancestors had gotten the hell out of there even though it was in the cargo holds of slave ships bound for the English North-American colonies. (Hey Randy, is that you? Randy MacDonald (the really big GnXp blogger)? That’s not you posting under the name “Ventris,” is it Randy? I mean, your ideas on Africa and this guy’s are so similar you could almost be the same guys ... Forgive me if I’m wrong, but ... Hey Randy, you still planning on moving to South Africa, the up-and-coming worldwide socio-economic wonder and veritable financial/industrial first-world powerhouse where whites and blacks both lead a dream existence? ... Let us know when you’re leaving, Randy—we’ll throw you a big going-away bash and post the pix on the internet! ...) “I think the only solution is for them to feel as though they are participating in something that while particular, is not a total affront to the international system and is being done in unison with other peoples for universally appreciable reasons. That sentiment has appeal across the board.” Yeah, that’s why Japan, China, India, Mexico, Israel, Pakistan, and ... hey, every country on the planet Earth but white ones, come to think of it! ... always ask the “international system’s” permission before setting national-origins immigration policy for themselves ... Yeah, they wanna make sure they do things “in unison with other peoples for universally appreciable reasons” ... None of them wants its immigration policy to be “a total affront to the international system,” no, absolutely not .... You’ve gotta be fricking joking, Ventris. (Hey who let this guy in here, anyway? How’d he get in? I thought no U.N.-worshippers were allowed! Rules change while I was away or something?) “Japan is geopolitically in an environment where its neighbours and closest historical neighbours share most of its peoples perspectives. I agree theirs is a fine example but a situation very far from the reality we have to deal with.” Huh??? I’m afraid someone’ll have to translate that for me ... “I think the UN is pretty dysfunctional and worthless in its current form” OK so your testosterone level’s not literally zero—good. (Had me scared there, for a minute—thought you were gonna need to start daily injections but that last bit showed you’ve got a bare minimum of the stuff sloshing around in your bloodstream ... not nearly enough of course but hey, no one’s perfect, we realize that ...) “the entire premise of my argument has been based on an acceptance of generally low African intelligence and the desire for some form of international separatism. So I don’t really know what you’re talking about.” Let’s just say you’re going about it the wrong way then, Ventris, and leave it at that ... But don’t give up: keep reading MR.com—you’ll come around, in time ... 23
Posted by Ventris on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:58 | # ben tillman said: >>>Sub-Saharan Africa has other deficiencies beyond its aggregate IQ. But that’s all beside the point. The more apposite question is, why does the answer to your question matter? Presumably because you think our resources should be devoted to an altruistic experiment….
Which, I guess, leads to a final question—if you propose intervention to improve the plight of Africans, have you not conceded that the Africans themselves possess deficiencies that prevent them from achieving “sustainability”?
-
>>>Yeah, that’s why Japan, China, India, Mexico, Israel, Pakistan, and ... hey, every country on the planet Earth but white ones, come to think of it! ... always ask the “international system’s” permission before setting national-origins immigration policy for themselves ... Yeah, they wanna make sure they do things “in unison with other peoples for universally appreciable reasons” ... None of them wants its immigration policy to be “a total affront to the international system,” no, absolutely not .... You’ve gotta be fricking joking, Ventris. (Hey who let this guy in here, anyway? How’d he get in? I thought no U.N.-worshippers were allowed! Rules change while I was away or something?)
24
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:53 | # I simply do not see it as an argument against the feasibility of the sort of strategy advocated by the Sierra Club…. What is that strategy? 25
Posted by Ventris on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:02 | # The ‘supply side’ solution.. check the article hyperlinked in Will Barret’s entry. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:57 | # “We already have accepted a plurality of immigrants and, to be peaceful about it, have no choice but to defer to international cooperation. In effect the process we undertake will be no different than any of the abovementioned, but we have an additional requirement to get there. Universalism brought us here and it’s the best way out.” (—Ventris) “[To address the immigration problem we’ve] no choice but to defer to international cooperation.” “Universalism brought us here and [universalism is] the best way out.” “we have an additional requirement [before we can solve the immigration problem].” I don’t understand any of the points you’re making. Setting national immigration policy is strictly a national affair, not one requiring “international cooperation” or “universalism.” What am I missing? And what is the “additional requirement” needed before we can solve the immigration problem, according to you? “I do appreciate the Japanese example, but was again expressing my realism in stating that our situation is not the same.” Our situation as regards our complete freedom to unilaterally determine our immigration policy is the same as Japan’s, obviously. That our policy differs from theirs reflects simply the particular choice made by our overlords (a choice made without explicitly consulting us: they brazenly made the choice that suited them, hoping either we wouldn’t notice or they could suppress all questioning of it by name-calling propaganda techniques and their hate-speech laws). “I’m not Randy from Gnxp” I was joking. 27
Posted by Ventris on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:29 | # >>>And what is the “additional requirement” needed before we can solve the immigration problem, according to you? Our situation as regards our complete freedom to unilaterally determine our immigration policy is the same as Japan’s, obviously. That our policy differs from theirs reflects simply the particular choice made by our overlords (a choice made without explicitly consulting us: they brazenly made the choice that suited them, hoping either we wouldn’t notice or they could suppress all questioning of it by name-calling propaganda techniques and their hate-speech laws).
28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:01 | # I don’t understand the kind of consensus you’re seeking, Ventris. It sounds like you’ve already agreed to lose the war. Can you explain yourself clearly and more fully? I find you a bit on the vague side. 29
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:36 | # You are indeed missing a lot if you don’t think it’s any more complex than this. People have, to a large extent, accepted certain moral principles that make a unilateral line of thought in this department impossible. But that line of thinking comes from our “overlords”. And none of the principles involved is “moral”. Obviously, in one-on-one political discussions, one must consider one’s audience. But the trick is to show them that those “moral principles” are in fact *immoral*. Until they are able to grasp that they are living under a double standard (and that their interests are in fact legitimate), they will have no interest in the “supply-side solution”. What would be the point? 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:02 | # Look what the French are going through. I happened to see <u>this article</u> linked at the Großdeutsches site in a comment by Friedrich. Can anyone believe how bad it is over there?: “Jeudi, devant le tribunal correctionnel de Dunkerque, Mickaël, 20 ans, comparaissait pour provocation à la discrimination raciale. L’affiche [qui lui vaut cette comparution] n’est pas anodine. Placardée sur un abribus de Bollezeele mi-février, elle ne laissait guère d’ambiguïté quant à son contenu: ‘Immigration, invasion, la jeunesse européenne dit non.’ Une phrase suivie de la référence à un site Internet du même acabit. ‘Vous le pensez, cela?,’ lui demande la présidente. ‘Il y a des choses que vous pouvez penser, mais qu’on ne peut pas dire en public,’ concède-t-elle. Le procureur, plus véhément, ne croit guère à la candeur affichée par le prévenu, citant Brecht pour lequel les conducteurs des trains de déportation vers les camps de déportation savaient bien ce qu’ils faisaient. Et de rappeler que la peine maximale encourue pour ce délit va jusqu’à un an de prison ferme et 45000 euros d’amende.” (“Voix du Nord Dunkerque”, édition du samedi 16 avril 2005) “Mickaël, 20, appeared in court in Dunkerque [France] Thursday charged with incitement of racial discrimination. The sign [which resulted in charges being brought] wasn’t harmless. Posted in a bus shelter in Bollezeele in mid-February, there was little doubt as to its message: ‘Immigration, invasion, European youth say no.’ [It was] one sentence, followed by the address of an internet site of the same stripe. ‘Is that what you think?,’ asked the judge. ‘There are things you can think, but which you can’t say in public,’ she conceded [the judge was a woman]. The more forceful prosecutor, unimpressed by the accused’s seeming guilelessness, quoted Brecht to the effect that the engineers who brought the deportation trains to the deportation camps knew exactly what they were doing, and repeated that the maximum penalty for this crime was a year in prison without possibility of parole and a fine of 45,000 euros.” (“Voix du Nord Dunkerque” [newspaper], April 16, 2005) [Everyone got that? ... because he posted the words “immigration, invasion, European youth say no” on the wall of a bus shelter ... See how the other side’s trying to rig the whole goddamn thing so it’ll be unstoppable? Sorry, but ... they’re going to learn what’s unstoppable ...] 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:30 | # By the way, in reference to my comment just above: I don’t know the exact current exchange rate, but 45,000 euros is well over fifty thousand dollars. 32
Posted by friedrich braun on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:09 | # 45 000 EUROS = $ 56 000 Whenever anyone raises a voice against immigration the spectre of the holocaust (whatever it was) is raised by the establishment (and in France, no less!). Why? How do they get away with it? That’s one of the most perplexing things about the entire debate. Can you imagine if economic conservatives always accused egalitarian social democrats of preparing the next GULag and Soviet-style psychiatric hospitals/prisons, because of their views on redistributive taxation? What would be everyone’s reaction to such insane talk? He would be laughed at and rightly called a hysterical nutcase out of touch with reality. What does redistributive taxation has to do with the GULag? People would ask. How come, then, no one asks what immigration reform has to do with the holocaust? Can someone explain? I don’t get it. It’s just that the holocaust is a club used to all sorts of purposes and by all kinds of people who really couldn’t care less about Jews or anti-Semitism. This just happens to be the biggest weapon in the arsenal. Of course, just as with the epithet “racist” and its cousins “homophobe”, “sexist”, etc., the term “holocaust” is losing all of its meaning, becoming just another emotional rhetorical ploy cynically used to shut people up before they can make their points. Dealing with real arguments is so much more difficult than name-calling, you’d have to address the issues raises, while slingling mud is the ultimate lazy approach. You’d don’t have to rebutt the other’s party’s arguments, just say “Nazi”, “Auschwitz”, and the “holocaust” and voila! Game, set, and match! How long will this appraoch work? I think that it will just encourage the fed up masses to say: well, if that’s what it means to be “Nazi”, then I guess I’m a Nazi. Those magical incantation (“racist”, “Auschwitz”, etc.) are increasingly losing some their potency, to the system’s chagrin. I mean, maybe eventually they’ll be forced to speak to the issues without name-calling. 33
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:16 | # Whenever anyone raises a voice against immigration the spectre of the holocaust (whatever it was) is raised by the establishment (and in France, no less!). Why? How do they get away with it? The establishment owns the apparatus of public opinion formation, and many memes simply bypass the realm of rational thought as they are implanted into our consciousness. We, of course, are denied the opportunity to inject reason into the process. It takes about five seconds of reflection for one to conclude that connecting the “Holocaust” and immigration restriction is profoundly stupid. Immigration restriction does not ineluctably lead to “Holocaust”; it does not tend to lead to “Holocaust”; it does not threaten to lead to “Holocaust”. No. Immigration restriction ensures that a “Holocaust” will not and cannot happen. A nation cannot commit “Holocaust” against Jews or Arabs or Bantus if there are no Jews or Arabs or Bantus within the territory controlled by the nation. This is so elementary as to approach tautology. 34
Posted by friedrich braun on Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:15 | # The only racial holocaust that’s about to happen is against the indigenous Whites who are being submerged by the teeming, limitless invading masses. Post a comment:
Next entry: Blacks, rape and the nervousness of The Multi-Cult
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by John S Bolton on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:10 | #
That is true; and the more aid were given, the lower the death rates, and the less the incentive to lower birth rates, as in the gulf sheikdoms. Indeed the more aid be given, and in proportion as it is effectual in addressing basic needs above those of less priority, the greater the clamor for immigration visas will grow. The effect of mass immigration of the modern inclusive type is to level average IQ, average unemployment, crime rates and all else that differs significantly between populations. Resources are distributed randomly in the world. Levelling incomes, though, can only mean that no country may go ahead in terms of productivity, or additional funding for research above the global norm. Globalization of research efforts can only mean a halt to advancement of civilization across the board. The global average is a minuscule fraction of what is needed for progress. This comes from IQ, not from lasting cultures which are refractory to the influence of public policy.