The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
What Trump's Wall Says to the World
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of “Mending Walls.”

And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the “beautiful wall” President Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.

The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.

Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.

Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?

Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.

It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

Two decades ago, the Old Right and the neocons engaged in a ferocious debate over what America was and is.

Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans?

Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?

The Old Right contended that America existed even before the Revolution, and that this new nation, this new people, wrote its own birth certificate, the Constitution. Before Washington, Madison and Hamilton ever went to Philadelphia, America existed.

What forced the premature birth of the nation — was the Revolution.

We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson’s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who no longer deserved our loyalty or love.

The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.

When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.

Not until decades after the Great Migration of 1890-1920, with the common trials of the Depression, World War II and Cold War, were we truly forged again into one united nation and people.

By 1960, almost all of us shared the same heroes and holidays, spoke the same language and cherished the same culture.

ORDER IT NOW

What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free.

In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.

To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.

The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.

Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.

Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?

Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.

Now, across Europe, center-left and center-right parties are facing massive defections because they are perceived as incapable of coping with the existential threat of the age — the overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East.

President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.

The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Though ‘Trump is Hitler’ hysteria is ridiculous, there is one striking parallel.

    Trump, like Hitler, is fusing left and right. He is for nationalism(rightism) but also reaching out to workers(leftism). He is calling for a kind of social-nationalist-capitalism. A New Wheel-and-Deal.

    And this is what the progs and globs fear most about Trump. Trump stole the thunder from the Democrats who either took the white working class for granted or thought it was no longer crucial to win elections. (As more of the middle class feared slipping to working class or service class, Trump picked up even more votes.)

    The real fear is not about Trump rounding up Muslims(or Jews) and putting them in camps. There is Zero Chance of that.

    The real fear is that Trump’s brand of ‘national socialism’(minus the crazy race theories) may have great appeal because of the anxieties unleashed by globalism that favored the urban rich and affluent in global cities over everyone else.
    Globalism also made the urban elites of NY and SF and even DC identify more with urban peers in London, Paris, Hong Kong, and even Ho Chi Minh City than with their national brethren.

    While Trump rallied the patriots, the so-called Women’s March was promoted as a Global Event. But why should people in OTHER nations protest what happens in the US? They should mind their own business.

    The media are loathe to point out the one valid parallel between Trump and Hitler. Both Trump and Hitler fused rightism with leftism. Nationalism and pro-worker platform.

    For the media to mention this would be an admittance that the Democratic Party betrayed the workers and classic leftism. Also, it would be an acknowledgement that not everything about National Socialism was evil. Yes, there was WWII and Holocaust that forever destroyed the brand, but it had some ideas that were quite sound and relevant to our world.

    So, instead of noticing that Trumpism is a fusion of rightism and leftism, the Progs and GLOB would have us believe that Trump is a far-right extremist who is like Hitler because he wants WWIII and has plans to round up and gas non-whites.

    Push the hysteria and keep the truth about Trumpism(it is combo of rightism and leftism) as mysteria. Shhhhhh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Hitler was a socialist, and a fascist, an offshoot of socialism, not far-right. I've explained this before. The idea that fascism is rightwing is a lie. It has always been a lie, and it is still a lie.

    Trump is not a fascist. Democrats are fascists. Trump is a nationalist, which is about the only thing you got right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/what-trumps-wall-says-to-the-world/#comment-1742439
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Well, all pomposity aside, there’s, of course, a much better way to prevent illegal economic migration than building walls: prosecute, to the full extent of the law, a bunch of businesses and individuals who hire undocumented workers. No SSN, fake SSN – if you’re paying wages to someone who is not allowed to be employed in the US – your business goes bankrupt, and you’re going to jail for a few years. And voila – businesses and individuals stop employing illegals, and the illegals all go home. No walls necessary.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Not all of them come here with the purpose of retarding wages. Some come for other malevolent reasons. The wall is ne necessary.
    , @moi
    I've been saying the same thing for some time--go after the employers who hire illegals. It's a quicker, cheaper, and more intelligent solution.
  3. alexander says:

    Dear Mr. Buchanan,

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Is it so hard for us to see the refugee crisis for what it is…..”.blood splatter” from the brutal dismemberment and carnage of the numerous countries we have pulverized ,shattered and decimated over the last decade and a half ?

    All countries that share the singular virtue of never having attacked us, on 9-11.

    Is not the hemorrhaging of refugees from these eviscerated nations, now numbering in the tens of millions, wholly synonymous with the tens of trillions in tax payer dollars, hemorrhaged from our nations balance sheet to prosecute these foolish, criminal and reckless wars ?

    And what of our Neocon war masters, whom we trusted to guide our ship of state through the uncharted “emergencies” at the dawn of this century, and who chose to “lie” us into war, are they not the ones truly responsible for this “titanic” mess ?

    If we must build a wall, Mr Buchanan, then let us use THEIR assets to fund and erect it…..NOT the taxpayers……Moreover, since it was their odious deceits which brought us to this point , perhaps we should consider burying their heads and bones in the concrete , when we do.

    Then, perhaps, our “great wall” will serve as a fitting monument to all the criminals within it, as equally as it serves to protect us, from all the criminals beyond it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
    "Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable"

    I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the "catastrophic wars" that countries like Ireland and Norway have unleashed upon Africa and the Middle East. And how people from Nigeria and Pakistan have been forced to flee from them.

    , @woodNfish

    ...rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Dumbest comment I've read today.
    , @Richard S

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Yes, it's your analysis which is flawed. The neocon wars on behalf of (((a certain foreign power))) have nothing to do with the gigantic population boom across the uncivilized world in the past 40 years.

    Europe neither requires nor desires these low IQ unassimilables, thanks very much.
    , @AnotherDad

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Uh me ... and just about anyone else who actually looks at the facts.

    Sure there's been local disruption by the Iraq war, the Syrian civil war that are extra motivation for people to leave those places. But Arab\Muslim lands are far from "virtually uninhabitable". In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving. But what they don't offer is European\American\Western levels of prosperity, freedom or welfare states.

    These young men--and the European refugee influx is overwhelmingly young men--are looking to have an adventure, make a buck in more prosperous lands and try to bang looser white women. They are off to milk the white goose. Which seems like a much easier job than "owning" their own nations: picking a side and fighting to make their own nation have better constitutional government, rule of law and hopefully down the road, prosperity.

    Africa, of course ... even more so. There's been even less intervention there. The wars are their own tribal and big man fights. The population growth has been even more insane and unlike the Arab\Muslims lands, is still going flat out with crazy high fertility. But Africans are low IQ, there's little prospect of things getting better--Africans being able to make them better--so the young men are trying to get to Europe. Again for adventure, making a buck, banging white girls ... milking the white goose.

    Essentially none of this is gated by "splatter". It's lower IQ populations with crappier, less law abiding, less prosperous, nations, right next to higher IQ more prosperous nations ... who insanely have stopped protecting their borders.

  4. @alexander
    Dear Mr. Buchanan,

    Do any of us really believe that the "overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East" is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Is it so hard for us to see the refugee crisis for what it is.....".blood splatter" from the brutal dismemberment and carnage of the numerous countries we have pulverized ,shattered and decimated over the last decade and a half ?

    All countries that share the singular virtue of never having attacked us, on 9-11.

    Is not the hemorrhaging of refugees from these eviscerated nations, now numbering in the tens of millions, wholly synonymous with the tens of trillions in tax payer dollars, hemorrhaged from our nations balance sheet to prosecute these foolish, criminal and reckless wars ?

    And what of our Neocon war masters, whom we trusted to guide our ship of state through the uncharted "emergencies" at the dawn of this century, and who chose to "lie" us into war, are they not the ones truly responsible for this "titanic" mess ?

    If we must build a wall, Mr Buchanan, then let us use THEIR assets to fund and erect it.....NOT the taxpayers......Moreover, since it was their odious deceits which brought us to this point , perhaps we should consider burying their heads and bones in the concrete , when we do.

    Then, perhaps, our "great wall" will serve as a fitting monument to all the criminals within it, as equally as it serves to protect us, from all the criminals beyond it.

    “Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable”

    I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the “catastrophic wars” that countries like Ireland and Norway have unleashed upon Africa and the Middle East. And how people from Nigeria and Pakistan have been forced to flee from them.

    Read More
  5. alexander says:

    When I say “our wars” , Johnny,

    I am referring to the Neocon led, US wars , which have not only created a refugee crisis of epic proportions, but have drained our nation of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. Money, that quite frankly, nearly every American would like to have back.

    What a disaster.

    Read More
  6. When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.

    None of these groups became “Americans”. They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants. All of these groups were harmful to the nation our Founders left to their posterity.

    Ellis Island should be a place of mourning, it was the open sore that allowed hordes of invaders into the body of America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    ... they were treated with a firm hand - and merged ... not much of a sign of a firm hand in Minnesota or Minneapolis these days, lads .
    , @Dube
    " They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants." Chris, you are unrealistic if you think that anyone buys your assessment.
    , @simonvauly
    Says the guy with the French Norman surname. Who is a limey frog pipsqueak like you to tell me, that my german relatives have been here since the 17th century and built this country that i have the right to be here or not. Go away loser
    , @Hibernian
    And what about your own family tree Mr. Mallory? I'm sure everyone in it got here before 1840.
  7. woodNfish says:

    The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality.

    No, much of what the Left wants is motivated by hate and racism.

    Read More
  8. Kyle a says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, all pomposity aside, there's, of course, a much better way to prevent illegal economic migration than building walls: prosecute, to the full extent of the law, a bunch of businesses and individuals who hire undocumented workers. No SSN, fake SSN - if you're paying wages to someone who is not allowed to be employed in the US - your business goes bankrupt, and you're going to jail for a few years. And voila - businesses and individuals stop employing illegals, and the illegals all go home. No walls necessary.

    Not all of them come here with the purpose of retarding wages. Some come for other malevolent reasons. The wall is ne necessary.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Not all of them come here with the purpose of retarding wages. Some come for other malevolent reasons.
     
    Yeah, not all of them, but probably 99% of them. Why not try and see what happens when the employment laws are enforced.
  9. woodNfish says:

    The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.

    Also wrong. No one at that time or even up to the war of secession called themselves “American”. They referred to themselves by their state or region within a state. We were a federation of independent and sovereign states. The butcher Lincoln sought to destroy that independence with his unconstitutional war. He almost succeeded. It wasn’t until 1869 that the Supreme Court declared secession to be unconstitutional. One of many bullshit decisions by the SC.

    Read More
  10. woodNfish says:
    @Anon
    Though 'Trump is Hitler' hysteria is ridiculous, there is one striking parallel.

    Trump, like Hitler, is fusing left and right. He is for nationalism(rightism) but also reaching out to workers(leftism). He is calling for a kind of social-nationalist-capitalism. A New Wheel-and-Deal.

    And this is what the progs and globs fear most about Trump. Trump stole the thunder from the Democrats who either took the white working class for granted or thought it was no longer crucial to win elections. (As more of the middle class feared slipping to working class or service class, Trump picked up even more votes.)

    The real fear is not about Trump rounding up Muslims(or Jews) and putting them in camps. There is Zero Chance of that.

    The real fear is that Trump's brand of 'national socialism'(minus the crazy race theories) may have great appeal because of the anxieties unleashed by globalism that favored the urban rich and affluent in global cities over everyone else.
    Globalism also made the urban elites of NY and SF and even DC identify more with urban peers in London, Paris, Hong Kong, and even Ho Chi Minh City than with their national brethren.

    While Trump rallied the patriots, the so-called Women's March was promoted as a Global Event. But why should people in OTHER nations protest what happens in the US? They should mind their own business.

    The media are loathe to point out the one valid parallel between Trump and Hitler. Both Trump and Hitler fused rightism with leftism. Nationalism and pro-worker platform.

    For the media to mention this would be an admittance that the Democratic Party betrayed the workers and classic leftism. Also, it would be an acknowledgement that not everything about National Socialism was evil. Yes, there was WWII and Holocaust that forever destroyed the brand, but it had some ideas that were quite sound and relevant to our world.

    So, instead of noticing that Trumpism is a fusion of rightism and leftism, the Progs and GLOB would have us believe that Trump is a far-right extremist who is like Hitler because he wants WWIII and has plans to round up and gas non-whites.

    Push the hysteria and keep the truth about Trumpism(it is combo of rightism and leftism) as mysteria. Shhhhhh.

    Hitler was a socialist, and a fascist, an offshoot of socialism, not far-right. I’ve explained this before. The idea that fascism is rightwing is a lie. It has always been a lie, and it is still a lie.

    Trump is not a fascist. Democrats are fascists. Trump is a nationalist, which is about the only thing you got right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    Socialism is to fascism as hunter-gathers are to settlement folk.

    Somewhat different social facts to promote different lifestyles.
  11. woodNfish says:
    @alexander
    Dear Mr. Buchanan,

    Do any of us really believe that the "overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East" is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Is it so hard for us to see the refugee crisis for what it is.....".blood splatter" from the brutal dismemberment and carnage of the numerous countries we have pulverized ,shattered and decimated over the last decade and a half ?

    All countries that share the singular virtue of never having attacked us, on 9-11.

    Is not the hemorrhaging of refugees from these eviscerated nations, now numbering in the tens of millions, wholly synonymous with the tens of trillions in tax payer dollars, hemorrhaged from our nations balance sheet to prosecute these foolish, criminal and reckless wars ?

    And what of our Neocon war masters, whom we trusted to guide our ship of state through the uncharted "emergencies" at the dawn of this century, and who chose to "lie" us into war, are they not the ones truly responsible for this "titanic" mess ?

    If we must build a wall, Mr Buchanan, then let us use THEIR assets to fund and erect it.....NOT the taxpayers......Moreover, since it was their odious deceits which brought us to this point , perhaps we should consider burying their heads and bones in the concrete , when we do.

    Then, perhaps, our "great wall" will serve as a fitting monument to all the criminals within it, as equally as it serves to protect us, from all the criminals beyond it.

    …rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Dumbest comment I’ve read today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Depleted Uranium certainly does make lands virtually uninhabitable and thousands of tons of it were used in Iraq alone. Consider the resulting birth defects.

    Consequently, the dumbest comment I'VE read today is probably yours. Don't sweat it though, it's morning where I live, the day is young and you have some very stiff competition.
  12. Rurik says:

    The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.

    and that struggle is right of the people of the West to exist~ or not

    the wall is a symbolic message to the rest of the world that we have no intention of going gently into that goodnight, thankyouverymuch

    from New Zealand to Norway, we are determined to persevere as a race and a people, and no amount of butt-hurt screeching of ‘racists!’ or ‘anti-Semites’ will work anymore to corrode our resolve.

    we know now what you intend for us- and that is our collective genocide by blending. Because you, (and you know who I’m talking to Moshe) want to see us degraded and destroyed. Not that you don’t have legions of willing armies of Muslims and Mexicans, Africans and everyone else who would be only too happy to see their people, who often harbor a visceral resentment (hatred) for our kind, crush us all under their immigration boot. Together you hope that your armies of BLM, LGBT, radical feminist cows, Islamic hegemons, Hispanic and Asian and African immigrants, and everybody else… can overwhelm whitey and take what he has and lord it over him, as his children become your slaves and his property and lands divided up between you. Huh?

    we all know that now. We know the grand agenda, and we’re just not on board. Ok?

    Yes, we’ve heard your screeching for 50 years and more about what a vile and racist people we are, and how we’ve all enslaved you and Holocausted you and persecuted you and stolen your lands and occupied you and colonized you and all the rest~ ad naseam.

    but when we’ve grown up poor, and often unemployed and struggled against your open hostility from the pillars of power in our own governments and institutions, and managed to scratch out a living despite your Affirmative Action and other racist hurdles intended to hobble us and demean us. We’ve gotten a glimmer of your intentions along the way, and we now know what you have in mind for us.

    So The Wall is like that moment in history when Charles [The Hammer] Martel rallied his countrymen to waylay the Muslim hoards at the Battle of Tours, and save Europa from those whom would violate her, and destroy her for eternity. Trump is our modern day Charles [The Hammer] Martel. He’s on the verge of going down in history as the Lion of the West, and the man who rallied the spirit of the Western man to persevere further into the future unfolding story of mankind, rather than see his story end in the 21st century, and buried under the teaming hoards of those who hate our Western ways and especially our people. And very much want to see us repudiated and plowed under the dirt of their collective butt-hurt.

    This iconic image from Paris says it all

    the people who are for Trump’s Wall see that image and are troubled, and would prefer that not to be France’s or American’s future.

    the people who’re against The Wall, see that image and it sooths them and bolsters their sense of fair play and progress. ‘That’s what you get for being a ‘racist, anti-Semite, Christian crusader, colonizer, oppressor, Holocauster, Nazi, gender specific, unreconstructed male, dying in wars to benefit your deadliest enemy! and on and on, ad nauseum.

    (has anyone noticed that it’s the very, exact same people who love the wars… the Democrats like Hillary and Obama and the neocons like John McCain and the PNAC, CFR, et al, that are also for open borders?)

    If it were up to them, we’d have a war with Russia right now, and they’d see that scene from Paris repeated in every corner of the Western world, from Finland to Fargo. So we had better not leave it up to them. We had better take the reins of our destiny out of their hands and return it to ours, because failing to do so, is not just going to mean the end of California or Sweden, it’s going to mean the end of us all. And that is the true meaning of Trump’s (and Viktor Orbán’s, and Marine Le Pen’s, and Nigel Farage’s) beautiful Wall(s).

    As for the wars and atrocities that the US zio-fecal government has visited upon so many parts of the world, if you’re paying attention, you’ll see that Trump is also spelling the end of all that madness and insanity. And it is both sides of that coin, the end of the Fiend’s zio-wars, and the salvation of the West, that has the Fiend twisting in it’s juices.

    here’s Trump, telling the Fiend that his serial wars and genocidal agenda for the West is over

    That’s what the Wall is all about

    Read More
    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @anon
    momma used to say, Better to remain silent and let people think you're an ignorant bigot, than open it and remove all doubt.

    French colonization of Algiers
    http://sites.psu.edu/afr110/wp-content/uploads/sites/14793/2014/10/french-algeria.jpg

    French colonization of Viet Nam
    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/France–Vietnam_relations

    Frenchmen kill Frenchmen
    http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

    you & yer open mouth are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport
    , @in the middle
    So romanticized and bombastic. I agree that as you mentioned 'christian crusaders', yes and here is a quote: "Will rise up ethnos against ethnos and basileas (kingdoms against kingdoms) against basileas" Mark 13:8. The sad part is that there is not difference with God. I am a believer not in churchianity, but in Chirst, the son of the living God. I see all this as something coming, according to Holy Scripture, of races against races, predicted by My Lord Iessus, Christos, as named in Greek. All we have to prey is, "Let thine Kingdom come..." and may those millions of human beings mislead by messianic individuals, and or fallowing cults i.e. Koran, Talmud, etal, must come to the true knowledge of the only true God and his Only Son Iessus Christ! Love you all, in his name.

    And may our God from heaven have mercy upon his people in the USA! in Iessus Christ name.

  13. Numinous says:

    Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries. Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Now, if you are desperate to prevent that, you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time. The ONLY way to achieve that is to trade with those countries, allowing them to use their primary market advantage (low labor cost) to produce a net win-win situation (yes, some sectors in developed countries suffer, and that is very unfortunate, but that can be fixed by doing a great deal more to help those people in a targeted manner rather than trying to shatter globalism.)

    But you are vehemently anti-trade too. So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous and simultaneously prevent them from migrating; in effect, making their countries giant concentration camps. And you really wonder what people in poorer countries will think of this?

    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline
     
    because we don't want to look like you, k?

    we like the way we look, (and think and act and otherwise are)

    does that make your butt-hurt?


    and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time.
     
    the reason the Congo has the economy of the Congo, is because it's full of Congolese. If you swapped the population of Switzerland with the Congo, in ten years the Congo would look like Switzerland the Switzerland would look like the Congo. Duh

    trying to shatter globalism
     
    into a millions spinning pieces, and then spread salt on it's rotting carcass and make sure the beast never again raises its ugly Rothschild head.

    The third world countries y0u speak of have every opportunity to help themselves, and the West has provided unimaginable opportunities with technological miracles and sure, trade is a good thing all around. But what you're obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other, both in terms of economic well-being, and ethnic identity, (or lack there of). And the people of Europe simply don't want to look like you. K?


    So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous
     
    how so?

    no one is preventing poor countries from getting more prosperous. No one wants anyone to stay impoverished. Look at Singapore or so much of Asia. They used the technology developed and made available by the West, combined with their own resourcefulness, and are creating thriving, burgeoning nations. If Honduras or Mozambique want to do the same, who is stopping them? Eh?

    They have incredible resources in Africa and S. America, Asia, and elsewhere. Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go? Answer: no one. If the third world wants a leg up, then by all means we should all do what we can to give it to them. But if they just want to see Europe and N. America brought down to their level, then thanks, but no thanks.


    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn’t
     
    that's just stupid.

    we just like the kind of country and way of life that our ancestors built and handed to us, so that we can hand it to our children. And we don't want to see it all destroyed and sent reeling into a dystopian hell on earth of Balkanized strife and hatred and tribalism. Sorry about your butt-hurt, but that's just the way it is.

    Trump is going to build The Wall and end the Eternal WarsⓊ

    all hail the Lion of the West!

    , @KenH

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries.
     
    And if you were historically literate you would know that old Europe had to fend off invasions from Asians (Huns & Mongols) since the fall of Rome and Muslims since its appearance in the 7th century. Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.

    Europe is expected to wring its hands and self flagellate for its prior colonizations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?


    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline....
     
    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren't letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death and adopt policies that dramatically increase the native white birthrate while repatriating Muslims and Africans to their countries of origin.

    .....and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to "subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
  14. @Kyle a
    Not all of them come here with the purpose of retarding wages. Some come for other malevolent reasons. The wall is ne necessary.

    Not all of them come here with the purpose of retarding wages. Some come for other malevolent reasons.

    Yeah, not all of them, but probably 99% of them. Why not try and see what happens when the employment laws are enforced.

    Read More
  15. Richard S says:
    @alexander
    Dear Mr. Buchanan,

    Do any of us really believe that the "overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East" is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Is it so hard for us to see the refugee crisis for what it is.....".blood splatter" from the brutal dismemberment and carnage of the numerous countries we have pulverized ,shattered and decimated over the last decade and a half ?

    All countries that share the singular virtue of never having attacked us, on 9-11.

    Is not the hemorrhaging of refugees from these eviscerated nations, now numbering in the tens of millions, wholly synonymous with the tens of trillions in tax payer dollars, hemorrhaged from our nations balance sheet to prosecute these foolish, criminal and reckless wars ?

    And what of our Neocon war masters, whom we trusted to guide our ship of state through the uncharted "emergencies" at the dawn of this century, and who chose to "lie" us into war, are they not the ones truly responsible for this "titanic" mess ?

    If we must build a wall, Mr Buchanan, then let us use THEIR assets to fund and erect it.....NOT the taxpayers......Moreover, since it was their odious deceits which brought us to this point , perhaps we should consider burying their heads and bones in the concrete , when we do.

    Then, perhaps, our "great wall" will serve as a fitting monument to all the criminals within it, as equally as it serves to protect us, from all the criminals beyond it.

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Yes, it’s your analysis which is flawed. The neocon wars on behalf of (((a certain foreign power))) have nothing to do with the gigantic population boom across the uncivilized world in the past 40 years.

    Europe neither requires nor desires these low IQ unassimilables, thanks very much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Excuse me ?

    Who is talking about a population boom ?....I am talking about tens of millions of people forced to evacuate their homes because their countries have become unlivable "war zones" over the last decade.


    According to the U.N.H.C.R..there are 65.3 million "forcibly" displaced people in the world today.The vast majority are from war torn regions in Africa and the Middle East.

    This is the largest number of displaced people since WWII.

    Its a total disaster.

    There are 21.3 million officially designated "refugees" of which nearly 50% have come from Syria and Afghanistan...alone.

    If you don't believe me......look it up.

    .

  16. Rurik says:
    @Numinous
    Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries. Why shouldn't it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Now, if you are desperate to prevent that, you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time. The ONLY way to achieve that is to trade with those countries, allowing them to use their primary market advantage (low labor cost) to produce a net win-win situation (yes, some sectors in developed countries suffer, and that is very unfortunate, but that can be fixed by doing a great deal more to help those people in a targeted manner rather than trying to shatter globalism.)

    But you are vehemently anti-trade too. So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous and simultaneously prevent them from migrating; in effect, making their countries giant concentration camps. And you really wonder what people in poorer countries will think of this?

    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn't.

    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline

    because we don’t want to look like you, k?

    we like the way we look, (and think and act and otherwise are)

    does that make your butt-hurt?

    and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time.

    the reason the Congo has the economy of the Congo, is because it’s full of Congolese. If you swapped the population of Switzerland with the Congo, in ten years the Congo would look like Switzerland the Switzerland would look like the Congo. Duh

    trying to shatter globalism

    into a millions spinning pieces, and then spread salt on it’s rotting carcass and make sure the beast never again raises its ugly Rothschild head.

    The third world countries y0u speak of have every opportunity to help themselves, and the West has provided unimaginable opportunities with technological miracles and sure, trade is a good thing all around. But what you’re obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other, both in terms of economic well-being, and ethnic identity, (or lack there of). And the people of Europe simply don’t want to look like you. K?

    So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous

    how so?

    no one is preventing poor countries from getting more prosperous. No one wants anyone to stay impoverished. Look at Singapore or so much of Asia. They used the technology developed and made available by the West, combined with their own resourcefulness, and are creating thriving, burgeoning nations. If Honduras or Mozambique want to do the same, who is stopping them? Eh?

    They have incredible resources in Africa and S. America, Asia, and elsewhere. Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go? Answer: no one. If the third world wants a leg up, then by all means we should all do what we can to give it to them. But if they just want to see Europe and N. America brought down to their level, then thanks, but no thanks.

    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn’t

    that’s just stupid.

    we just like the kind of country and way of life that our ancestors built and handed to us, so that we can hand it to our children. And we don’t want to see it all destroyed and sent reeling into a dystopian hell on earth of Balkanized strife and hatred and tribalism. Sorry about your butt-hurt, but that’s just the way it is.

    Trump is going to build The Wall and end the Eternal WarsⓊ

    all hail the Lion of the West!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Look at Singapore or so much of Asia.

    The prosperity of Singapore has one and only one source: free trade. Ditto for China, to the extent that it has prospered. And for Japan, while it was in the growing phase. Not allowing a country to trade is the equivalent of an embargo.

    But what you’re obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other

    I'm advocating no such thing, but rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living and also provide assistance to their home countries (remittances, knowledge, etc.) Just like your European ancestors had. All the science and technology in the world couldn't have made Europe prosper if its unfortunate (and in some cases unwanted) had not had the opportunity to go off making fortunes in distant lands or establishing settler colonies.

    Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go?

    Many of these countries, particularly in Asia, had "amazing" civilizations at a time when few Europeans (Greeks, possibly Romans, excepted) had anything to match. There are ups and downs, so don't get too conceited. And Europeans wouldn't have had the opportunities to build better civilizations without the ability to migrate (thereby reducing population pressures at home), and in many cases impose disadvantageous trade terms on weaker countries (again, particularly Asians, like Indians, Chinese, Indonesians). It categorically was not their (your) wonderful genes.
    , @in the middle
    Its so simple and true. My only regret is that for centuries the USA and Mexico were linked by proximity and to some extent resources. The difference is that the USA was colonized by people who came to find a new life and make it better, while Mexico was colonized by people who came for resources and to slave the population of the area. While the Spaniards plundered the resources and shipped them back to Spain, while caring nothing for the land, the Colonizers in the USA built infrastructure and wealth and strived to make the Nation powerful and prosperous, the Spaniards impoverished Mexico and the rest of the Americas. Further more, they forced upon the victims their religion and using that, caused a submissive population to trust in the catholic clergy with their lives, removing from within the initiative place upon the Protestant in the North. The American protestant went on to build his nation while the Mexican catholic was left destitute and soulless. The protestant went on to build the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth, the catholics went on to slave each other, and to live in a country where the wealth went up to their hierarchy of land owners, and the clergy, until now. So yes, believes are so important, because they guide your daily walk and dealings in life. Although the USA is now a post Christian nation, still enjoys the labors of our ancestors who came here and build what we do have. The question is: Are we going to preserve that legacy, or loose it? The younger generation is so afeminate and weak character wise, that I wonder if they have what it takes to preserve what our ancestors built with great sacrifices and effort.
  17. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik

    The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.
     
    and that struggle is right of the people of the West to exist~ or not

    the wall is a symbolic message to the rest of the world that we have no intention of going gently into that goodnight, thankyouverymuch

    from New Zealand to Norway, we are determined to persevere as a race and a people, and no amount of butt-hurt screeching of 'racists!' or 'anti-Semites' will work anymore to corrode our resolve.

    we know now what you intend for us- and that is our collective genocide by blending. Because you, (and you know who I'm talking to Moshe) want to see us degraded and destroyed. Not that you don't have legions of willing armies of Muslims and Mexicans, Africans and everyone else who would be only too happy to see their people, who often harbor a visceral resentment (hatred) for our kind, crush us all under their immigration boot. Together you hope that your armies of BLM, LGBT, radical feminist cows, Islamic hegemons, Hispanic and Asian and African immigrants, and everybody else... can overwhelm whitey and take what he has and lord it over him, as his children become your slaves and his property and lands divided up between you. Huh?

    we all know that now. We know the grand agenda, and we're just not on board. Ok?

    Yes, we've heard your screeching for 50 years and more about what a vile and racist people we are, and how we've all enslaved you and Holocausted you and persecuted you and stolen your lands and occupied you and colonized you and all the rest~ ad naseam.

    but when we've grown up poor, and often unemployed and struggled against your open hostility from the pillars of power in our own governments and institutions, and managed to scratch out a living despite your Affirmative Action and other racist hurdles intended to hobble us and demean us. We've gotten a glimmer of your intentions along the way, and we now know what you have in mind for us.

    So The Wall is like that moment in history when Charles [The Hammer] Martel rallied his countrymen to waylay the Muslim hoards at the Battle of Tours, and save Europa from those whom would violate her, and destroy her for eternity. Trump is our modern day Charles [The Hammer] Martel. He's on the verge of going down in history as the Lion of the West, and the man who rallied the spirit of the Western man to persevere further into the future unfolding story of mankind, rather than see his story end in the 21st century, and buried under the teaming hoards of those who hate our Western ways and especially our people. And very much want to see us repudiated and plowed under the dirt of their collective butt-hurt.

    This iconic image from Paris says it all

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    the people who are for Trump's Wall see that image and are troubled, and would prefer that not to be France's or American's future.

    the people who're against The Wall, see that image and it sooths them and bolsters their sense of fair play and progress. 'That's what you get for being a 'racist, anti-Semite, Christian crusader, colonizer, oppressor, Holocauster, Nazi, gender specific, unreconstructed male, dying in wars to benefit your deadliest enemy! and on and on, ad nauseum.

    (has anyone noticed that it's the very, exact same people who love the wars... the Democrats like Hillary and Obama and the neocons like John McCain and the PNAC, CFR, et al, that are also for open borders?)

    If it were up to them, we'd have a war with Russia right now, and they'd see that scene from Paris repeated in every corner of the Western world, from Finland to Fargo. So we had better not leave it up to them. We had better take the reins of our destiny out of their hands and return it to ours, because failing to do so, is not just going to mean the end of California or Sweden, it's going to mean the end of us all. And that is the true meaning of Trump's (and Viktor Orbán's, and Marine Le Pen's, and Nigel Farage's) beautiful Wall(s).

    As for the wars and atrocities that the US zio-fecal government has visited upon so many parts of the world, if you're paying attention, you'll see that Trump is also spelling the end of all that madness and insanity. And it is both sides of that coin, the end of the Fiend's zio-wars, and the salvation of the West, that has the Fiend twisting in it's juices.

    here's Trump, telling the Fiend that his serial wars and genocidal agenda for the West is over

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPp7N5iyCWY

    That's what the Wall is all about

    momma used to say, Better to remain silent and let people think you’re an ignorant bigot, than open it and remove all doubt.

    French colonization of Algiers

    French colonization of Viet Nam

    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/France–Vietnam_relations

    Frenchmen kill Frenchmen

    http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

    you & yer open mouth are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport
     
    ok, so at one time certain European nations practiced colonization

    so too did our Cro-Magnon ancestors wipe out the Neanderthals and displaced them

    and all peoples thoughout history have done the exact same thing to each other at one time or another. (The Amerindian tribes were doing it to each other and worse, like human sacrifice when the Europeans got here. The Africans are still doing it to each other. It was Europeans that ended slavery and colonization, with the exception of Israel, who is a rogue nation today)

    does that mean all Europeans should now hand over their countries and daughters to the first African/Asian/Hispanic they see?

    you may say 'Yes!'

    and I respect your right to your opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree

    I respect the right of all people to self-determination. I consider it a God given imperative. The only ones who don't deserve it are the ones who don't respect my demand that I have it too.

    the Palestinians have every right and duty to demand self-determination, and when their rights are not respected, then they have every obligation to resist the forces of colonization of their land, up to and including the use of force.

    this goes for all nations, from Germany to Guatemala

    so if you think this is payback time, and you like what you see in that picture I posted of Paris, then that's fine. There are a lot of people like you out there, and we're building a nice, big beautiful Wall just for you! ;)
    , @anon
    French colonization of Algeria began after the Barbary pirates kidnapped about 2,000,000 Europeans into slavery. And the French all left during the 1960's.

    The rets of your article is drivel. Why should Europeans give their countries away? What do they gain from it? Zilch.
  18. FLgeezer says:

    Another in your continuing series of great posts Rurik. Many thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thank you FLgeezer,

    Being a working class white guy who came up from the bottom, I just sometimes feel the need to point out that we're all not these privileged people who walk around eating bonbons and whipping black slaves into picking our cotton.

    Many of us have had a hard go of it, and it's just a bit much to hear all the butt-hurts demanding that we've got to pay for what "we've" done. And hand over our countries and neighborhoods and everything else, because we're all guilty for colonization and for dying in Vietnam and in *Eternal Wars for Israel. Well fuck that shit.

    *(that seems to be one of the rather tiresome mantras, that because some Zionist Jews somewhere have used our money to corrupt our governments into using our young blood and treasure to destroy several countries, that we working class people must be made to suffer further by allowing the young men from those destroyed countries to come to our communities and destroy what's left of our way of life. The Zionists foment wars that get us killed (both world wars.. today's Middle Eastern atrocities). They loot our treasury and debase our currency and pump sewage into our children's souls. But it us that should be made to pay for what these people do, eh?

    Forgive me if I'm just not feeling too remorseful. If it were up to me, I'd send every single war pig one of them to the Hague, and their treasonous politician lickspittle$ too. But when they come for my daughter, and say 'it's her that we want, because of what you've done'. Well then, they've got a fight on their hands.

    I know some people who grew up in Miami, FLgeezer. In their youth Miami was considered a red-neck paradise, because it was basically white (albeit often Jewish, at least on the beach).

    and now today, after a few "safety valves" have been turned upon, the white people of Miami have been virtually ethnically cleansed out of the city and basically even the county.

    what their 'safety valves' mean- is they want what you've got, and they damn sure mean to take it

    build The Wall !
  19. alexander says:
    @Richard S

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Yes, it's your analysis which is flawed. The neocon wars on behalf of (((a certain foreign power))) have nothing to do with the gigantic population boom across the uncivilized world in the past 40 years.

    Europe neither requires nor desires these low IQ unassimilables, thanks very much.

    Excuse me ?

    Who is talking about a population boom ?….I am talking about tens of millions of people forced to evacuate their homes because their countries have become unlivable “war zones” over the last decade.

    According to the U.N.H.C.R..there are 65.3 million “forcibly” displaced people in the world today.The vast majority are from war torn regions in Africa and the Middle East.

    This is the largest number of displaced people since WWII.

    Its a total disaster.

    There are 21.3 million officially designated “refugees” of which nearly 50% have come from Syria and Afghanistan…alone.

    If you don’t believe me……look it up.

    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard S
    Cough, cough.

    Is it possible that someone commenting on this site could be ignorant of the realities?

    Yes.

    Is it probable? >:-|
  20. mtn cur says:

    Napoleon looked at a comparable border security plan and said it would work pretty good to stop smugglers. Trump should put the border patrol in charge of the border and stop wowing the rubes with yet another way to piss away money. La migra will be perfectly capable of protecting the border if they are finally allowed to. The same money should be deducted from the “bribe God grant to Israel” and used to build a prison for crooked politicians and other white collar criminals. Along the Mexican border of course.

    Read More
  21. Numinous says:
    @Rurik

    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline
     
    because we don't want to look like you, k?

    we like the way we look, (and think and act and otherwise are)

    does that make your butt-hurt?


    and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time.
     
    the reason the Congo has the economy of the Congo, is because it's full of Congolese. If you swapped the population of Switzerland with the Congo, in ten years the Congo would look like Switzerland the Switzerland would look like the Congo. Duh

    trying to shatter globalism
     
    into a millions spinning pieces, and then spread salt on it's rotting carcass and make sure the beast never again raises its ugly Rothschild head.

    The third world countries y0u speak of have every opportunity to help themselves, and the West has provided unimaginable opportunities with technological miracles and sure, trade is a good thing all around. But what you're obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other, both in terms of economic well-being, and ethnic identity, (or lack there of). And the people of Europe simply don't want to look like you. K?


    So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous
     
    how so?

    no one is preventing poor countries from getting more prosperous. No one wants anyone to stay impoverished. Look at Singapore or so much of Asia. They used the technology developed and made available by the West, combined with their own resourcefulness, and are creating thriving, burgeoning nations. If Honduras or Mozambique want to do the same, who is stopping them? Eh?

    They have incredible resources in Africa and S. America, Asia, and elsewhere. Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go? Answer: no one. If the third world wants a leg up, then by all means we should all do what we can to give it to them. But if they just want to see Europe and N. America brought down to their level, then thanks, but no thanks.


    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn’t
     
    that's just stupid.

    we just like the kind of country and way of life that our ancestors built and handed to us, so that we can hand it to our children. And we don't want to see it all destroyed and sent reeling into a dystopian hell on earth of Balkanized strife and hatred and tribalism. Sorry about your butt-hurt, but that's just the way it is.

    Trump is going to build The Wall and end the Eternal WarsⓊ

    all hail the Lion of the West!

    Look at Singapore or so much of Asia.

    The prosperity of Singapore has one and only one source: free trade. Ditto for China, to the extent that it has prospered. And for Japan, while it was in the growing phase. Not allowing a country to trade is the equivalent of an embargo.

    But what you’re obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other

    I’m advocating no such thing, but rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living and also provide assistance to their home countries (remittances, knowledge, etc.) Just like your European ancestors had. All the science and technology in the world couldn’t have made Europe prosper if its unfortunate (and in some cases unwanted) had not had the opportunity to go off making fortunes in distant lands or establishing settler colonies.

    Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go?

    Many of these countries, particularly in Asia, had “amazing” civilizations at a time when few Europeans (Greeks, possibly Romans, excepted) had anything to match. There are ups and downs, so don’t get too conceited. And Europeans wouldn’t have had the opportunities to build better civilizations without the ability to migrate (thereby reducing population pressures at home), and in many cases impose disadvantageous trade terms on weaker countries (again, particularly Asians, like Indians, Chinese, Indonesians). It categorically was not their (your) wonderful genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    I'm not trying to sound arrogant 'Numinous'

    (what does that name mean?)

    rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living
     
    a safety valve is one thing

    tens of millions of the abject poor are another

    I've learned that to get to the gist, you often have to read between the lines, and by now I know all I need to know about these so-called 'safety valves'

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg
  22. Rurik says:
    @anon
    momma used to say, Better to remain silent and let people think you're an ignorant bigot, than open it and remove all doubt.

    French colonization of Algiers
    http://sites.psu.edu/afr110/wp-content/uploads/sites/14793/2014/10/french-algeria.jpg

    French colonization of Viet Nam
    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/France–Vietnam_relations

    Frenchmen kill Frenchmen
    http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

    you & yer open mouth are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport

    are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport

    ok, so at one time certain European nations practiced colonization

    so too did our Cro-Magnon ancestors wipe out the Neanderthals and displaced them

    and all peoples thoughout history have done the exact same thing to each other at one time or another. (The Amerindian tribes were doing it to each other and worse, like human sacrifice when the Europeans got here. The Africans are still doing it to each other. It was Europeans that ended slavery and colonization, with the exception of Israel, who is a rogue nation today)

    does that mean all Europeans should now hand over their countries and daughters to the first African/Asian/Hispanic they see?

    you may say ‘Yes!’

    and I respect your right to your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree

    I respect the right of all people to self-determination. I consider it a God given imperative. The only ones who don’t deserve it are the ones who don’t respect my demand that I have it too.

    the Palestinians have every right and duty to demand self-determination, and when their rights are not respected, then they have every obligation to resist the forces of colonization of their land, up to and including the use of force.

    this goes for all nations, from Germany to Guatemala

    so if you think this is payback time, and you like what you see in that picture I posted of Paris, then that’s fine. There are a lot of people like you out there, and we’re building a nice, big beautiful Wall just for you! ;)

    Read More
  23. Rurik says:
    @Numinous
    Look at Singapore or so much of Asia.

    The prosperity of Singapore has one and only one source: free trade. Ditto for China, to the extent that it has prospered. And for Japan, while it was in the growing phase. Not allowing a country to trade is the equivalent of an embargo.

    But what you’re obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other

    I'm advocating no such thing, but rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living and also provide assistance to their home countries (remittances, knowledge, etc.) Just like your European ancestors had. All the science and technology in the world couldn't have made Europe prosper if its unfortunate (and in some cases unwanted) had not had the opportunity to go off making fortunes in distant lands or establishing settler colonies.

    Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go?

    Many of these countries, particularly in Asia, had "amazing" civilizations at a time when few Europeans (Greeks, possibly Romans, excepted) had anything to match. There are ups and downs, so don't get too conceited. And Europeans wouldn't have had the opportunities to build better civilizations without the ability to migrate (thereby reducing population pressures at home), and in many cases impose disadvantageous trade terms on weaker countries (again, particularly Asians, like Indians, Chinese, Indonesians). It categorically was not their (your) wonderful genes.

    I’m not trying to sound arrogant ‘Numinous’

    (what does that name mean?)

    rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living

    a safety valve is one thing

    tens of millions of the abject poor are another

    I’ve learned that to get to the gist, you often have to read between the lines, and by now I know all I need to know about these so-called ‘safety valves’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Different people have different motivations. I'm not a left-liberal type, so you don't have to read between the lines to glean mine; take my statements at face value.

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade ("free" or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you'll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall. If your goal is "protecting your culture and ethnic heritage", you'll be able to do that for a while simply because you have immense resources (and in the US's case, geography) to wall yourselves off. But it'll be short-lived. Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.

    So if you are really concerned for your grand-children and great-grand-children, and not just about yourself, you'll have to learn to compromise. For my part, my preference is for trade over migration. You can curtail most immigration if you want, but allow some amount of offshoring and outsourcing. That will improve the fortunes of poor countries over a long term. (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that's the way it'll remain for eternity.)
  24. Rurik says:
    @FLgeezer
    Another in your continuing series of great posts Rurik. Many thanks.

    thank you FLgeezer,

    Being a working class white guy who came up from the bottom, I just sometimes feel the need to point out that we’re all not these privileged people who walk around eating bonbons and whipping black slaves into picking our cotton.

    Many of us have had a hard go of it, and it’s just a bit much to hear all the butt-hurts demanding that we’ve got to pay for what “we’ve” done. And hand over our countries and neighborhoods and everything else, because we’re all guilty for colonization and for dying in Vietnam and in *Eternal Wars for Israel. Well fuck that shit.

    *(that seems to be one of the rather tiresome mantras, that because some Zionist Jews somewhere have used our money to corrupt our governments into using our young blood and treasure to destroy several countries, that we working class people must be made to suffer further by allowing the young men from those destroyed countries to come to our communities and destroy what’s left of our way of life. The Zionists foment wars that get us killed (both world wars.. today’s Middle Eastern atrocities). They loot our treasury and debase our currency and pump sewage into our children’s souls. But it us that should be made to pay for what these people do, eh?

    Forgive me if I’m just not feeling too remorseful. If it were up to me, I’d send every single war pig one of them to the Hague, and their treasonous politician lickspittle$ too. But when they come for my daughter, and say ‘it’s her that we want, because of what you’ve done’. Well then, they’ve got a fight on their hands.

    I know some people who grew up in Miami, FLgeezer. In their youth Miami was considered a red-neck paradise, because it was basically white (albeit often Jewish, at least on the beach).

    and now today, after a few “safety valves” have been turned upon, the white people of Miami have been virtually ethnically cleansed out of the city and basically even the county.

    what their ‘safety valves’ mean- is they want what you’ve got, and they damn sure mean to take it

    build The Wall !

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    build The Wall!
     
    You got it, geenyuss


    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/24/trumps-mexican-wall-boon-israeli-security-company/94377438/
  25. Richard S says:
    @alexander
    Excuse me ?

    Who is talking about a population boom ?....I am talking about tens of millions of people forced to evacuate their homes because their countries have become unlivable "war zones" over the last decade.


    According to the U.N.H.C.R..there are 65.3 million "forcibly" displaced people in the world today.The vast majority are from war torn regions in Africa and the Middle East.

    This is the largest number of displaced people since WWII.

    Its a total disaster.

    There are 21.3 million officially designated "refugees" of which nearly 50% have come from Syria and Afghanistan...alone.

    If you don't believe me......look it up.

    .

    Cough, cough.

    Is it possible that someone commenting on this site could be ignorant of the realities?

    Yes.

    Is it probable? >:-|

    Read More
  26. @woodNfish
    Hitler was a socialist, and a fascist, an offshoot of socialism, not far-right. I've explained this before. The idea that fascism is rightwing is a lie. It has always been a lie, and it is still a lie.

    Trump is not a fascist. Democrats are fascists. Trump is a nationalist, which is about the only thing you got right.

    Socialism is to fascism as hunter-gathers are to settlement folk.

    Somewhat different social facts to promote different lifestyles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    I am not following what you are trying to say at all. Fascists are socialists, they are not right wing at all.
  27. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik
    thank you FLgeezer,

    Being a working class white guy who came up from the bottom, I just sometimes feel the need to point out that we're all not these privileged people who walk around eating bonbons and whipping black slaves into picking our cotton.

    Many of us have had a hard go of it, and it's just a bit much to hear all the butt-hurts demanding that we've got to pay for what "we've" done. And hand over our countries and neighborhoods and everything else, because we're all guilty for colonization and for dying in Vietnam and in *Eternal Wars for Israel. Well fuck that shit.

    *(that seems to be one of the rather tiresome mantras, that because some Zionist Jews somewhere have used our money to corrupt our governments into using our young blood and treasure to destroy several countries, that we working class people must be made to suffer further by allowing the young men from those destroyed countries to come to our communities and destroy what's left of our way of life. The Zionists foment wars that get us killed (both world wars.. today's Middle Eastern atrocities). They loot our treasury and debase our currency and pump sewage into our children's souls. But it us that should be made to pay for what these people do, eh?

    Forgive me if I'm just not feeling too remorseful. If it were up to me, I'd send every single war pig one of them to the Hague, and their treasonous politician lickspittle$ too. But when they come for my daughter, and say 'it's her that we want, because of what you've done'. Well then, they've got a fight on their hands.

    I know some people who grew up in Miami, FLgeezer. In their youth Miami was considered a red-neck paradise, because it was basically white (albeit often Jewish, at least on the beach).

    and now today, after a few "safety valves" have been turned upon, the white people of Miami have been virtually ethnically cleansed out of the city and basically even the county.

    what their 'safety valves' mean- is they want what you've got, and they damn sure mean to take it

    build The Wall !

    build The Wall!

    You got it, geenyuss

    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/24/trumps-mexican-wall-boon-israeli-security-company/94377438/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company
     
    the Trump administration is going to have to swim in the zio-sewer for a long time. Who do you think processes every single American phone bill? The Mossad is so far up the US butt that the they're like a permanent colonoscopy for the State Dept. and Pentagon and CIA and every other acronym of treason. Want to know where the polyps are? Just ask the Mossad.

    No president is going to have a free hand to steer this ship of state without acknowledging that Israel controls our Senate and much of our House. Not to mention all of our msm and banking and a lot more. So if Trump is playing footsie with bb, then it's because bb's goons are everywhere. And that's the reality.

    But certain things are changing. For the first time since the CIA fomented the war in Syria, it looks like our military is targeting the orcs of ISIS instead of the Syrian army. If true, this is great news indeed. Imagine the U.S. cooperating with Russia to stamp out those animals, and free Syria?!

    Imagine what that will mean for the terrorized people of that region, to finally have hope for the future. To possibly be able to rebuild what Obama and bb have destroyed. I must say, the more John McBloodstain seems apoplectic with rage, the more confident I become.

    There's a lot going on. And big changes seem to be happening. Could I be wrong about it all, and could Trump turn out to be a complete ruse, and start more wars and strife to benefit Israel? Sure, I'm no fool. I can't look into the man's heart, but so far the signs are encouraging. And after so many years of treason and atrocities and horrors writ large, using my country as its mindless golem to smash other countries and kill so many people and cause so much suffering and misery that it's incalculable, after all of that, to finally have some hope, is a huge thing.
    , @alexander
    Anon,

    Yup...there is definitely a policy dovetailing going on...I am surprised Rurik did not pick up on it.

    Israel has a wall......Now we of course, to be just like Israel, have to have a wall too.

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it ...and do it first, of course.

    As we kick out OUR Muslims...Israel, can finally.....kick out theirs.

    Despite Ruriks heroic speech to the contrary, we are joined at the hip," brothers in crime" with our best-est buddy in the whole wide world... Israel.

    And our beloved Donald's policies are, by precedent, a one way ticket to a Greater Israel with a substantive Jewish majority.


    Isn't it grand ?
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    La Raza activists are depressed, but keep shouting “bully!”, “bully!”

    Read More
  29. RSDB says:

    I largely agree with this article, and I thank Mr. Buchanan for writing it.

    However,with respect to

    In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.

    surely Latin America is Western and Christian as well?

    RSDB

    Read More
  30. Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.

    What about the Cubans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, did I leave out any? who were welcomed by Republicans for the same reason?

    President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.

    When will we read or hear the plain fact that a 500 mile wall already exists lovingly erected by the previous administrator in chief who deported more people than any predecessor.
    Call it Obama’s wall so people will know of it.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  31. Rurik says:
    @anon

    build The Wall!
     
    You got it, geenyuss


    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/24/trumps-mexican-wall-boon-israeli-security-company/94377438/

    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company

    the Trump administration is going to have to swim in the zio-sewer for a long time. Who do you think processes every single American phone bill? The Mossad is so far up the US butt that the they’re like a permanent colonoscopy for the State Dept. and Pentagon and CIA and every other acronym of treason. Want to know where the polyps are? Just ask the Mossad.

    No president is going to have a free hand to steer this ship of state without acknowledging that Israel controls our Senate and much of our House. Not to mention all of our msm and banking and a lot more. So if Trump is playing footsie with bb, then it’s because bb’s goons are everywhere. And that’s the reality.

    But certain things are changing. For the first time since the CIA fomented the war in Syria, it looks like our military is targeting the orcs of ISIS instead of the Syrian army. If true, this is great news indeed. Imagine the U.S. cooperating with Russia to stamp out those animals, and free Syria?!

    Imagine what that will mean for the terrorized people of that region, to finally have hope for the future. To possibly be able to rebuild what Obama and bb have destroyed. I must say, the more John McBloodstain seems apoplectic with rage, the more confident I become.

    There’s a lot going on. And big changes seem to be happening. Could I be wrong about it all, and could Trump turn out to be a complete ruse, and start more wars and strife to benefit Israel? Sure, I’m no fool. I can’t look into the man’s heart, but so far the signs are encouraging. And after so many years of treason and atrocities and horrors writ large, using my country as its mindless golem to smash other countries and kill so many people and cause so much suffering and misery that it’s incalculable, after all of that, to finally have some hope, is a huge thing.

    Read More
  32. alexander says:
    @anon

    build The Wall!
     
    You got it, geenyuss


    Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/24/trumps-mexican-wall-boon-israeli-security-company/94377438/

    Anon,

    Yup…there is definitely a policy dovetailing going on…I am surprised Rurik did not pick up on it.

    Israel has a wall……Now we of course, to be just like Israel, have to have a wall too.

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it …and do it first, of course.

    As we kick out OUR Muslims…Israel, can finally…..kick out theirs.

    Despite Ruriks heroic speech to the contrary, we are joined at the hip,” brothers in crime” with our best-est buddy in the whole wide world… Israel.

    And our beloved Donald’s policies are, by precedent, a one way ticket to a Greater Israel with a substantive Jewish majority.

    Isn’t it grand ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    The Mossad is so far up the US butt that the they’re like a permanent colonoscopy for the State Dept. and Pentagon and CIA and every other acronym of treason. Want to know where the polyps are? Just ask the Mossad.
     
    remember when they said the NSC gathered "only meta-data" from phone bills & emails?

    this may surprise you, but , they were lying.
    see @ 4 min: we can read entire email & weblog.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mIQmL2Lapw

    nb this particular Jewish-founded CIA- national security-linked company has a particular bug up their butt re Iran

    , @Rurik

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it …and do it first, of course.
     
    oh my goodness Alex, this couldn't be more apples and oranges

    first off, the reason Trump has to play ball with bb is because Israel owns the Senate and most of the House and the msm and most of the banksters are Zionists and all the Sheldon Adelsons and "think" tanks and academia and all the rest. Of course he's going to have to play ball. I just think right now he's giving bb enough rope to create a fist-class pariah state.

    That said, the comparison between Israel's wall and ours is fundamentally flawed. Israel's wall is aggressive, and designed to steal other people's property and ethnically cleanse the indigenous inhabitants. Our wall is defensive, and designed to protect what is ours and prevent ethnic cleansing. We are more like the Palestinians, who're being colonized. We too are being colonized, and that's what our wall is there to protect us from.

    Do you see the difference? I hope so Alex because it's very significant.

    Trump's wall is no different than Hungary's wall. A simple and common sense solution to an invasion. It is the US that is being invaded, just like it's the Palestinians that are being invaded. It is our country, just like it is the Palestinian's country. When people make outrageous claims to other people's land, like that God gave it to them, or that it all belongs to Mexico anyways, and they're just taking it back, well then that's just not sound reasoning. No?

    The fact is that it is Europe and N. America that are being invaded by people who're foreign and often hostile to our people and culture. Just like the Palestinians are being invaded by foreigners who're often (if not always) hostile to their people and culture. When I speak of the moral righteousness of our wall, it's the exact same moral righteousness I speak of when I say the Palestinians are the victims. So too are the Americans (and Europeans and others) that are being overrun and replaced.

    Yes, it is the American treasury that the Zionists are looting, and the American military that has acted as their Janissaries, slaughtering innocent people the world over, but that doesn't mean I consider it all an American crime, because we've been forced to participate in it by corruption and treason. If Trump continues to play that game for as long as it's necessary to put in place a security apparatus that would allow him to thumb his nose at the Zionists, then I can hardly blame him now for wanting to stay viable, and perhaps be the One who will free us from that yoke one glorious day. But for now he's going to have to play the game, and give bb all the rope he needs, so to speak.

  33. woodNfish says:
    @Drapetomaniac
    Socialism is to fascism as hunter-gathers are to settlement folk.

    Somewhat different social facts to promote different lifestyles.

    I am not following what you are trying to say at all. Fascists are socialists, they are not right wing at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    At the extremities both Left and Right become almost identical.
  34. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @alexander
    Anon,

    Yup...there is definitely a policy dovetailing going on...I am surprised Rurik did not pick up on it.

    Israel has a wall......Now we of course, to be just like Israel, have to have a wall too.

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it ...and do it first, of course.

    As we kick out OUR Muslims...Israel, can finally.....kick out theirs.

    Despite Ruriks heroic speech to the contrary, we are joined at the hip," brothers in crime" with our best-est buddy in the whole wide world... Israel.

    And our beloved Donald's policies are, by precedent, a one way ticket to a Greater Israel with a substantive Jewish majority.


    Isn't it grand ?

    The Mossad is so far up the US butt that the they’re like a permanent colonoscopy for the State Dept. and Pentagon and CIA and every other acronym of treason. Want to know where the polyps are? Just ask the Mossad.

    remember when they said the NSC gathered “only meta-data” from phone bills & emails?

    this may surprise you, but , they were lying.
    see @ 4 min: we can read entire email & weblog.

    nb this particular Jewish-founded CIA- national security-linked company has a particular bug up their butt re Iran

    Read More
  35. Rurik says:
    @alexander
    Anon,

    Yup...there is definitely a policy dovetailing going on...I am surprised Rurik did not pick up on it.

    Israel has a wall......Now we of course, to be just like Israel, have to have a wall too.

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it ...and do it first, of course.

    As we kick out OUR Muslims...Israel, can finally.....kick out theirs.

    Despite Ruriks heroic speech to the contrary, we are joined at the hip," brothers in crime" with our best-est buddy in the whole wide world... Israel.

    And our beloved Donald's policies are, by precedent, a one way ticket to a Greater Israel with a substantive Jewish majority.


    Isn't it grand ?

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it …and do it first, of course.

    oh my goodness Alex, this couldn’t be more apples and oranges

    first off, the reason Trump has to play ball with bb is because Israel owns the Senate and most of the House and the msm and most of the banksters are Zionists and all the Sheldon Adelsons and “think” tanks and academia and all the rest. Of course he’s going to have to play ball. I just think right now he’s giving bb enough rope to create a fist-class pariah state.

    That said, the comparison between Israel’s wall and ours is fundamentally flawed. Israel’s wall is aggressive, and designed to steal other people’s property and ethnically cleanse the indigenous inhabitants. Our wall is defensive, and designed to protect what is ours and prevent ethnic cleansing. We are more like the Palestinians, who’re being colonized. We too are being colonized, and that’s what our wall is there to protect us from.

    Do you see the difference? I hope so Alex because it’s very significant.

    Trump’s wall is no different than Hungary’s wall. A simple and common sense solution to an invasion. It is the US that is being invaded, just like it’s the Palestinians that are being invaded. It is our country, just like it is the Palestinian’s country. When people make outrageous claims to other people’s land, like that God gave it to them, or that it all belongs to Mexico anyways, and they’re just taking it back, well then that’s just not sound reasoning. No?

    The fact is that it is Europe and N. America that are being invaded by people who’re foreign and often hostile to our people and culture. Just like the Palestinians are being invaded by foreigners who’re often (if not always) hostile to their people and culture. When I speak of the moral righteousness of our wall, it’s the exact same moral righteousness I speak of when I say the Palestinians are the victims. So too are the Americans (and Europeans and others) that are being overrun and replaced.

    Yes, it is the American treasury that the Zionists are looting, and the American military that has acted as their Janissaries, slaughtering innocent people the world over, but that doesn’t mean I consider it all an American crime, because we’ve been forced to participate in it by corruption and treason. If Trump continues to play that game for as long as it’s necessary to put in place a security apparatus that would allow him to thumb his nose at the Zionists, then I can hardly blame him now for wanting to stay viable, and perhaps be the One who will free us from that yoke one glorious day. But for now he’s going to have to play the game, and give bb all the rope he needs, so to speak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    One of the crucial observations Machiavelli made, in the 15th century, was that Florentines protected themselves by building tall, walled castles in urban settings, but adversaries had weapons that could smash those walls, with ranges that could reach the highest levels from farther away. Niccolo was a military strategist -- he put together a military to defend Florence -- and he advised The Prince to expand the protected territory to match the weapons the adversary had access to.

    Today, the adversaries of the USA have cyber weapons, with far greater capacity to harm US interests than people on foot or in vehicles, or even in airplanes. Material walls do not protect from such weapons.
    Conversely, the US has cyber capacities as well, and also relatively simple electronic capabilities to monitor and protect boundaries: visas can be chipped to signal the location of a visa holder; borders can be -- no doubt they are -- electronically monitored -- hell, there are systems to keep dogs in a yard and other critters out by means of electric zappers.

    Border walls are so 14th century. They can be breached and do not protect against the new weapons the adversary possesses.

    They are also philosophically inconsistent: walls have two sides.
    Hugh Hewitt recently endorsed The Wall, reasoning that the Wall is a "visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty." He simultaneously endorsed building more air craft carriers and fighter jets, the better to aggress other nations's sovereignty.

    If you're going to affirm a "commitment to sovereignty," it must conform to that larger, universal rule, the Golden Rule, or, if you prefer, Kant's categorical imperative,

    "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

    If it is appropriate for the USA to erect a "visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty," then, at very least, the commitment to sovereignty is a universal principle demanding that the borders of all sovereign states must be respected.
  36. Realist says:

    “The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality.”

    Or stupidity.

    “Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans?”

    We were white people from northwestern Europe…the ones responsible for the vast majority of human progress.

    “In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe.”

    After the mid 1960′s the demographics of this country took a horrible turn for the worst.

    “The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.”

    This is why democracy doesn’t last too long…..about 100 years

    Read More
  37. Ron Unz says:

    Well, since my new software project is taking so much longer than I’d originally expected, I don’t ahve time for any serious writing, so the best I can do is leave an occasional comment.

    Personally, I think this whole notion of a “wall” solving America’s immigration problems is *utterly* ridiculous…

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there’s no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants. Certainly all the leading anti-immigration organizations and activists are perfectly aware of this, but most of them are just too “chicken” for PeeCee reasons to emphasize or even mention this simple fact in public, leading their rank-and-file followers to often remain ignorant.

    And for decades the *overwhelming* majority of immigrants have been legal rather than illegal, with this being especially true during the last few years. So focusing on illegal immigration is just nonsense, and really more a means of avoiding difficult political issues than anything else.

    Perhaps I’m being a little dense, but suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that’s 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?

    I actually wrote a long article analyzing the situation a few months ago, and maybe I should now republish it:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/a-grand-bargain-on-immigration-reform-2/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
    My dear Mr. Unz, perhaps you observed that today President Trump ended one of the most-scammed pipelines of legal immigration: refugee resettlement.

    It seems that your comment (above) may be an instance of jumping the gun, because diminishing legal immigration has to begin somewhere, and today's halt to refugee resettlement was that somewhere. We should hope that this first step will be followed by a second, a third, and however many more steps it will take to arrive at a long moratorium on all immigration. And we Americans can and should write to our President to exhort him to take all of those steps in turn. Perhaps it would help to think of diminishing legal immigration as a Twelve Step Program to wean the $ellout E$tabli$hment off of its addiction to Open Immigration: one step at a time.

    I think you also overlook that the Wall is a statement, a symbol, or, as the Left love to say, the Wall is "sending a message." In today's world and even in yesteryear's world, symbols that send a message had and continue to have enormous power. Just look at how the Left's "send me your...wretched refuse" message worked for as long as it had in deceiving so many people into believing erroneously that the Statue of Liberty is the all-time totem to Open Immigration, yet now it's time for the nationalist message to refute it. One. Step. At. A. Time.
    , @Anonymous

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there’s no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants.
     
    Yeah, I've noticed they illegal Mexicans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans have the same economic, social, and demographic impact on America as legal Koreans, East Indians, and Lebanese.
    , @Rurik

    suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that’s 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?
     
    it wouldn't of course, but legal immigration has to be voted on or otherwise mandated, and that makes a congress-critter accountable. Whereas illegal immigration is just something they can allow with a wink and a nod. It accomplishes the same thing in the end, by lowering the wages and Democrat voters and other agendas, but they can all pretend that there's just nothing they can do about it if they're illegal.

    The wall is more symbolic than anything else. It's telling the world that America has a border and means to keep it. Also it helps presumably with smuggling and such.

    But you're right, the place to start is with legal immigration.

    I once heard Ted Cruz mention that if people had such a problem with illegals being in the country, then the obvious solution was simply to make them all legal. Problem solved!

    So you're right there is some cowardice out there when it comes to saying that it's not simply a case of legal vs. illegal, but rather a case of America protecting its cultural and ethnic character. A lot of Americans don't want to see the kind of strife that you get when you force radically different people into the same space. Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant. Norway and New Zealand and Iceland routinely end up on lists of nations considered the most pleasant places to live. The occupied territories not so much. And I suspect that has something to do with ethnic harmony and cultural homogeneity, vs. ethnic and cultural and religious diversity / hostility.

    (I see I also was participating in the commentary on the article you linked to as well, Mr. Unz. A natural born bloviater I guess ; )
  38. Is there the slightest hint that the ethnic American nation that existed prior to 1789 was Anglo-AFRICAN? Or that it is today?

    Read More
  39. @Ron Unz
    Well, since my new software project is taking so much longer than I'd originally expected, I don't ahve time for any serious writing, so the best I can do is leave an occasional comment.

    Personally, I think this whole notion of a "wall" solving America's immigration problems is *utterly* ridiculous...

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there's no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants. Certainly all the leading anti-immigration organizations and activists are perfectly aware of this, but most of them are just too "chicken" for PeeCee reasons to emphasize or even mention this simple fact in public, leading their rank-and-file followers to often remain ignorant.

    And for decades the *overwhelming* majority of immigrants have been legal rather than illegal, with this being especially true during the last few years. So focusing on illegal immigration is just nonsense, and really more a means of avoiding difficult political issues than anything else.

    Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that's 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?

    I actually wrote a long article analyzing the situation a few months ago, and maybe I should now republish it:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/a-grand-bargain-on-immigration-reform-2/

    My dear Mr. Unz, perhaps you observed that today President Trump ended one of the most-scammed pipelines of legal immigration: refugee resettlement.

    It seems that your comment (above) may be an instance of jumping the gun, because diminishing legal immigration has to begin somewhere, and today’s halt to refugee resettlement was that somewhere. We should hope that this first step will be followed by a second, a third, and however many more steps it will take to arrive at a long moratorium on all immigration. And we Americans can and should write to our President to exhort him to take all of those steps in turn. Perhaps it would help to think of diminishing legal immigration as a Twelve Step Program to wean the $ellout E$tabli$hment off of its addiction to Open Immigration: one step at a time.

    I think you also overlook that the Wall is a statement, a symbol, or, as the Left love to say, the Wall is “sending a message.” In today’s world and even in yesteryear’s world, symbols that send a message had and continue to have enormous power. Just look at how the Left’s “send me your…wretched refuse” message worked for as long as it had in deceiving so many people into believing erroneously that the Statue of Liberty is the all-time totem to Open Immigration, yet now it’s time for the nationalist message to refute it. One. Step. At. A. Time.

    Read More
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ron Unz
    Well, since my new software project is taking so much longer than I'd originally expected, I don't ahve time for any serious writing, so the best I can do is leave an occasional comment.

    Personally, I think this whole notion of a "wall" solving America's immigration problems is *utterly* ridiculous...

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there's no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants. Certainly all the leading anti-immigration organizations and activists are perfectly aware of this, but most of them are just too "chicken" for PeeCee reasons to emphasize or even mention this simple fact in public, leading their rank-and-file followers to often remain ignorant.

    And for decades the *overwhelming* majority of immigrants have been legal rather than illegal, with this being especially true during the last few years. So focusing on illegal immigration is just nonsense, and really more a means of avoiding difficult political issues than anything else.

    Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that's 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?

    I actually wrote a long article analyzing the situation a few months ago, and maybe I should now republish it:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/a-grand-bargain-on-immigration-reform-2/

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there’s no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants.

    Yeah, I’ve noticed they illegal Mexicans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans have the same economic, social, and demographic impact on America as legal Koreans, East Indians, and Lebanese.

    Read More
  41. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, since my new software project is taking so much longer than I'd originally expected, I don't ahve time for any serious writing, so the best I can do is leave an occasional comment.

    Personally, I think this whole notion of a "wall" solving America's immigration problems is *utterly* ridiculous...

    Anyone who carefully examines the situation knows perfectly well that there's no significant difference in economic, social, or demographic impact between legal and illegal immigrants. Certainly all the leading anti-immigration organizations and activists are perfectly aware of this, but most of them are just too "chicken" for PeeCee reasons to emphasize or even mention this simple fact in public, leading their rank-and-file followers to often remain ignorant.

    And for decades the *overwhelming* majority of immigrants have been legal rather than illegal, with this being especially true during the last few years. So focusing on illegal immigration is just nonsense, and really more a means of avoiding difficult political issues than anything else.

    Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that's 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?

    I actually wrote a long article analyzing the situation a few months ago, and maybe I should now republish it:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/a-grand-bargain-on-immigration-reform-2/

    suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that’s 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?

    it wouldn’t of course, but legal immigration has to be voted on or otherwise mandated, and that makes a congress-critter accountable. Whereas illegal immigration is just something they can allow with a wink and a nod. It accomplishes the same thing in the end, by lowering the wages and Democrat voters and other agendas, but they can all pretend that there’s just nothing they can do about it if they’re illegal.

    The wall is more symbolic than anything else. It’s telling the world that America has a border and means to keep it. Also it helps presumably with smuggling and such.

    But you’re right, the place to start is with legal immigration.

    I once heard Ted Cruz mention that if people had such a problem with illegals being in the country, then the obvious solution was simply to make them all legal. Problem solved!

    So you’re right there is some cowardice out there when it comes to saying that it’s not simply a case of legal vs. illegal, but rather a case of America protecting its cultural and ethnic character. A lot of Americans don’t want to see the kind of strife that you get when you force radically different people into the same space. Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant. Norway and New Zealand and Iceland routinely end up on lists of nations considered the most pleasant places to live. The occupied territories not so much. And I suspect that has something to do with ethnic harmony and cultural homogeneity, vs. ethnic and cultural and religious diversity / hostility.

    (I see I also was participating in the commentary on the article you linked to as well, Mr. Unz. A natural born bloviater I guess ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duglarri
    Hi Rurik,

    "Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant"- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of "pleasantness", in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don't judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it's all working some time.
  42. @Rurik

    Israel wants to push all the Muslims and Palestinians out of Greater Israel, and it is so much easier to get away with it, now that we do it …and do it first, of course.
     
    oh my goodness Alex, this couldn't be more apples and oranges

    first off, the reason Trump has to play ball with bb is because Israel owns the Senate and most of the House and the msm and most of the banksters are Zionists and all the Sheldon Adelsons and "think" tanks and academia and all the rest. Of course he's going to have to play ball. I just think right now he's giving bb enough rope to create a fist-class pariah state.

    That said, the comparison between Israel's wall and ours is fundamentally flawed. Israel's wall is aggressive, and designed to steal other people's property and ethnically cleanse the indigenous inhabitants. Our wall is defensive, and designed to protect what is ours and prevent ethnic cleansing. We are more like the Palestinians, who're being colonized. We too are being colonized, and that's what our wall is there to protect us from.

    Do you see the difference? I hope so Alex because it's very significant.

    Trump's wall is no different than Hungary's wall. A simple and common sense solution to an invasion. It is the US that is being invaded, just like it's the Palestinians that are being invaded. It is our country, just like it is the Palestinian's country. When people make outrageous claims to other people's land, like that God gave it to them, or that it all belongs to Mexico anyways, and they're just taking it back, well then that's just not sound reasoning. No?

    The fact is that it is Europe and N. America that are being invaded by people who're foreign and often hostile to our people and culture. Just like the Palestinians are being invaded by foreigners who're often (if not always) hostile to their people and culture. When I speak of the moral righteousness of our wall, it's the exact same moral righteousness I speak of when I say the Palestinians are the victims. So too are the Americans (and Europeans and others) that are being overrun and replaced.

    Yes, it is the American treasury that the Zionists are looting, and the American military that has acted as their Janissaries, slaughtering innocent people the world over, but that doesn't mean I consider it all an American crime, because we've been forced to participate in it by corruption and treason. If Trump continues to play that game for as long as it's necessary to put in place a security apparatus that would allow him to thumb his nose at the Zionists, then I can hardly blame him now for wanting to stay viable, and perhaps be the One who will free us from that yoke one glorious day. But for now he's going to have to play the game, and give bb all the rope he needs, so to speak.

    One of the crucial observations Machiavelli made, in the 15th century, was that Florentines protected themselves by building tall, walled castles in urban settings, but adversaries had weapons that could smash those walls, with ranges that could reach the highest levels from farther away. Niccolo was a military strategist — he put together a military to defend Florence — and he advised The Prince to expand the protected territory to match the weapons the adversary had access to.

    Today, the adversaries of the USA have cyber weapons, with far greater capacity to harm US interests than people on foot or in vehicles, or even in airplanes. Material walls do not protect from such weapons.
    Conversely, the US has cyber capacities as well, and also relatively simple electronic capabilities to monitor and protect boundaries: visas can be chipped to signal the location of a visa holder; borders can be — no doubt they are — electronically monitored — hell, there are systems to keep dogs in a yard and other critters out by means of electric zappers.

    Border walls are so 14th century. They can be breached and do not protect against the new weapons the adversary possesses.

    They are also philosophically inconsistent: walls have two sides.
    Hugh Hewitt recently endorsed The Wall, reasoning that the Wall is a “visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty.” He simultaneously endorsed building more air craft carriers and fighter jets, the better to aggress other nations’s sovereignty.

    If you’re going to affirm a “commitment to sovereignty,” it must conform to that larger, universal rule, the Golden Rule, or, if you prefer, Kant’s categorical imperative,

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    If it is appropriate for the USA to erect a “visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty,” then, at very least, the commitment to sovereignty is a universal principle demanding that the borders of all sovereign states must be respected.

    Read More
  43. Bayan says:

    Mr. Buchanan gives a desperate picture of the USA.

    Who won the Cold War? America, Mother Russia, a third entity, a fourth force, some combination of these, none of the above?

    I am confused.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    A better question might be, who lost the Cold War? The American taxpayer did of course, the progeny of them will also be losers whilst they continue paying for it for a long time to come.
  44. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I don’t have the figures at hand, but my strong impression is that over the last 6-7 years, net immigration to America has been something like 90% legal and maybe 10% illegal. Furthermore, all the estimates I’ve always seen are that roughly half of all illegals actually arrive legally on temporary visas or whatever, and then just overstay. So building a gigantic Mexico Wall would address roughly 5% of the immigration “problem,” after which all of Trump’s more ignorant followers would give a big cheer and stop paying any attention to the issue. Bill Clinton used to call that sort of thing “Boob Bait for the Bubbas.”

    Even those raw numbers might understate the relative impact. Since WN Richard Spencer has been so ferociously demonized by the MSM, he’s recently gotten a bit more courageous, and I saw a YouTube video a few weeks ago in which he pointed out that (from the WN perspective) legal immigrants are always much more of a problem than illegals. That’s because most illegals come here planning to earn some money and then go home again (although they sometimes stay), while most legals arrive intending to stay here permanently.

    As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it’s been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren’t in that category), and the remainder probably aren’t all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they’re generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn’t make much difference.

    One thing that prompted my comment was recently hearing some leading hard-core Alt-Right figure rant and rave about illegal immigration, then add that he wasn’t too much concerned about legal immigrants because their numbers were so small by comparison. Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it’s been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren’t in that category), and the remainder probably aren’t all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they’re generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn’t make much difference."

    I believe you are correct. That is why immigration should be limited to those with and IQ of 130 or greater and an interest in STEM endeavors. This country is quite capable of producing all the lower IQ people needed.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.
     
    Well, different commentators, depending on their ideological orientation, see and address different 'problems'.

    From a non-racist perspective, I would say that legal immigration should present much less of a socioeconomic problem. The main reason being, of course, that legal emigration can be regulated; the numbers can be reduced or increased, and various requirements (education, age, professional qualification) can be introduced or adjusted. I understand: you're saying it's not being done, but at least with legal immigration it's in the realm of possibility.

    The other extremely important aspect is that legal immigrants exist and operate (mostly) within the legal framework - as opposed to the illegals existing and operating within the framework of illegal, underground society and economy. Therefore the illegals can't be integrated, and they are very easily exploited (suppression of wages).
    , @Rurik

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA
    , @jacques sheete

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.
     
    I would like to see some monuments erected with that message chiseled into them, and I'd like to see them at least as ubiquitous as "Holocaust" memorials and museums.

    One of my, for lack of a better word, "epiphanies" occurred when I sat at a state legislative session that was considering some laws on a subject about which I had quite a bit of knowledge and experience.

    The folks testifying, as well as the politicians spewing their views on the matter, both pro and con, displayed such stunningly ineffable and incorrigible ignorance that I completely lost all faith in the process.

    We wallow in ignorance.

    Anyone who has a shred of faith in political systems would do themselves a favor by arranging a similar experience and then take the time to entertain while educating themselves by reading Aristophanes', "The Knights," especially if you labor under the illusion that politics and legislative processes protect or improve society in any way.

    Pythagoras advised “Κυάμων ἀπέχεσθαι” (avoiding beans), and it had nothing to do with diet.
  45. Rurik says:

    Hey SC,

    Yea, I already pointed out that the wall is really symbolic, but it might help with smuggling some drugs and other stuff, like Eric Holders automatic weapons program for the cartels and such. But that would have more to do with keeping things in the US, as opposed to keeping them out. Which is another good point that Ron Paul brought up, and that’s that we shouldn’t be too keen on the wall, when one day it might to used to keep us in, like a Gaza type of open air prison.

    As for the “visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty.” and respecting other people’s sovereignty, you know very well that I’m that last person you have to make that argument to. But then I don’t blame plumbers and waitresses for the myriad enormities that my fiendish government had been committing all over the world. I blame the war criminals and traitors. I blame Bush and Obama and Tony Blair and Holonde and Merkel and John McStain.

    And I’ve been harping on that mantra for even long before I started posting here. Occasionally I even alienate people. Some guys will ask me if I saw that Clint Eastwood movie about the sniper, and I’ll say ‘no, because they made it seem like Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and that is a lie’. And I’ll watch them squirm, and think that I’m some sort of pinko liberal or something. But I hate lies and I hate treachery and murder and wars for fun and profit. And I’m outspoken about it.

    Anyways, yes of course we need to repudiate the war criminals and demand an end to the serial atrocities our government and CIA have been committing.

    I suspect that one of the agendas for importing millions of Muslims into the West is to cause strife, and create hostility between Muslim and Germans for instance. So that the next time the Zios want Germany to fight one of their wars for them, the people will be that much more willing, having suffered the scourge of diversity up close and personal. Look at that psycho in Norway who shot all those Norwegian children on that island. He hated Muslims, and lauded Israel, not having any idea it seems that the only reason Muslims were in Norway was because the Zionists wanted them there. It isn’t Muslims that control the governments of the West now is it?

    Anyways, I agree with your sentiments, and only hope that Trump will both end the wars, and end the mass immigration, both into Europe (by setting an example) and the US. And then once he’s helped Putin crush ISIS, the US and Russia and Europe can begin the long process of rebuilding the parts of the Middle East that they’ve been used by the Zionists to destroy.

    And Hillary and Obama can join Holonde and all the others at the Hague. We’ll make the 21st century once of peace and brotherhood and mutual respect, and a repudiation of the wars and horrors of the last century, not a continuation. Yes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Yes, Rurik, absolutely yes !


    I think a far more pressing issue than our "wall", is how the Donald chooses to confront our venal establishments addiction to" Terror Fraud" , "False Flagging", and "War Fraud".

    How is he going to engage this, considering it is a behavior none can discuss yet nearly all are aware by now,is going on ?

    Will he do what Obama did, and just capitulate and carry on with the deep state's pernicious parasitic behavior ?

    How dependent are our war industries, spy industries, and homeland industries on generating phony terror events to keep the money flowing from our coffers into their pockets?

    With our debt now having surpassed our GDP, and having grown to a whopping 20 trillion in just 15 years, can we really continue to afford these enormous drains on our nations wealth, if the causes for them are largely fabricated constructs performed by the security industries, themselves ?

    It is the most difficult issue our President must confront, considering how deeply entrenched our war and terror profiteers , have become ?

    It is not a healthy situation. In fact, it is quite dire.

    Even our security industries, as well as our CIA, must concede this, too.

    The most powerful economy in the world may have reached its limits on expending humongous sums of money on lots of phony behavior.

    How will our President grapple with this "undiscussable" carnage ?.

    How would you deal with it , if you were he ?




    .
  46. @woodNfish

    ...rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Dumbest comment I've read today.

    Depleted Uranium certainly does make lands virtually uninhabitable and thousands of tons of it were used in Iraq alone. Consider the resulting birth defects.

    Consequently, the dumbest comment I’VE read today is probably yours. Don’t sweat it though, it’s morning where I live, the day is young and you have some very stiff competition.

    Read More
  47. @woodNfish
    I am not following what you are trying to say at all. Fascists are socialists, they are not right wing at all.

    At the extremities both Left and Right become almost identical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin

    At the extremities both Left and Right become almost identical.

     

    In the US, the American right wing is pro-constitution, not pro-fascism.

    The US constitution empowers the people and their local governments versus enabling an all-powerful central government.

    Fascism requires an all-powerful central government to exist, the opposite of what is authorized by the US constitution.

    Socialism is possible under the US constitution, but it is only constitutional at the local level of government.

    The American left in the US is genuinely totalitarian and fascist, and as such must necessarily erect straw man narratives about the American right to demonize pro-constitution people.
  48. @Bayan
    Mr. Buchanan gives a desperate picture of the USA.

    Who won the Cold War? America, Mother Russia, a third entity, a fourth force, some combination of these, none of the above?

    I am confused.

    A better question might be, who lost the Cold War? The American taxpayer did of course, the progeny of them will also be losers whilst they continue paying for it for a long time to come.

    Read More
  49. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Since 80% of colored people vote Democratic, the Republicans will not survive the third-worldization of the USA”.

    Makes you very seriously wonder why they never opposed it, tooth and nail, right from day one.
    You can also add the conservative parties of the U.K. and Canada to this sorry list of dumb chumps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Makes you very seriously wonder why they never opposed it, tooth and nail, right from day one."

    Don't be so naive.

    The political filth work on the YBG IBG principle.
    You'll be gone, I'll be gone
    When the chickens come home to roost, in the meanwhile there's looting to be done.
  50. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    momma used to say, Better to remain silent and let people think you're an ignorant bigot, than open it and remove all doubt.

    French colonization of Algiers
    http://sites.psu.edu/afr110/wp-content/uploads/sites/14793/2014/10/french-algeria.jpg

    French colonization of Viet Nam
    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/France–Vietnam_relations

    Frenchmen kill Frenchmen
    http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

    you & yer open mouth are on the wrong side of history, Rurik old sport

    French colonization of Algeria began after the Barbary pirates kidnapped about 2,000,000 Europeans into slavery. And the French all left during the 1960′s.

    The rets of your article is drivel. Why should Europeans give their countries away? What do they gain from it? Zilch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What does this mean? Black Africans should colonize Europe because of the slave trade?
  51. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    French colonization of Algeria began after the Barbary pirates kidnapped about 2,000,000 Europeans into slavery. And the French all left during the 1960's.

    The rets of your article is drivel. Why should Europeans give their countries away? What do they gain from it? Zilch.

    What does this mean? Black Africans should colonize Europe because of the slave trade?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    No. Blacks would be more justified in colonizing themselves since blacks just sold off their excess slaves to Europeans. Or perhaps they should colonize the Arab world since Arabs took twice as many sub-Saharan black slaves as the trans-Atlantic trade did. In any case why would any Europeans want black or brown arrivals to his/her countries? What can they gain from it? Absolutely nothing.
  52. Numinous says:
    @Rurik
    I'm not trying to sound arrogant 'Numinous'

    (what does that name mean?)

    rather just the existence of a safety valve for some resourceful people in poorer countries to head off to richer countries to make a better living
     
    a safety valve is one thing

    tens of millions of the abject poor are another

    I've learned that to get to the gist, you often have to read between the lines, and by now I know all I need to know about these so-called 'safety valves'

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    Different people have different motivations. I’m not a left-liberal type, so you don’t have to read between the lines to glean mine; take my statements at face value.

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade (“free” or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you’ll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall. If your goal is “protecting your culture and ethnic heritage”, you’ll be able to do that for a while simply because you have immense resources (and in the US’s case, geography) to wall yourselves off. But it’ll be short-lived. Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.

    So if you are really concerned for your grand-children and great-grand-children, and not just about yourself, you’ll have to learn to compromise. For my part, my preference is for trade over migration. You can curtail most immigration if you want, but allow some amount of offshoring and outsourcing. That will improve the fortunes of poor countries over a long term. (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that’s the way it’ll remain for eternity.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade (“free” or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)
     
    as an advocate for poor countries, you do understand, don't you.. that allowing for immigration from poor to developed countries, it will necessarily mean that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries and head to the developed ones, thereby depriving the poorer nations of their best human capital. (yes, it's true, alas, that not all men are create equal)

    I tend to side with Jefferson on matters of state and race, and agree with him on harboring no ill-will towards any, and trading with all, and well-wishes towards all, but also protecting one's own when considering what's best for the country and one's fellow countrymen and women. That's all. Trade when it's beneficial to do so. Tariffs when it comes to protecting ones own industries and wages. And punishment for corporate greedy execs who would betray their nation and countrymen to build factories in China for bigger profits at the expense of the people they plan on selling those trinkets to.

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you’ll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall.
     
    you know what destabilizes countries?

    Bombing them.

    How about we start, by ending the bombing and droning and serial destabilizations that our CIA and State Dept. have been doing in places like Syria and Ukraine? That would seem like a good start to me to foment prosperity and harmony in the world, and in poor countries. The best thing we can do for poor countries is trade with them. And get Goldman Sachs to stop corrupting them with unpayable debt. Eh? Let's stop the American vulture capitalists from picking at the bones of nations like Argentina. Let's stop destabilizing entire poor regions and droning them and propping up super-corrupt regime like the House of Saud. How would that be to help the world's poor and put upon people, if we'd just stop doing all we can to harm them? I think that'd be a great start, personally.

    We should trade with Mexico and everyone else, but an open border is insane, and intended to destroy the lifestyle of the white majority of the US and plunge them into poverty and low wages, which suits the pigs in the GOP just fine, and creates voters for the DNC. While it harms and creates strife and misery for everyone else. Build the wall.

    Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.
     
    because they rotted from internal corruption, just like the US is doing.

    (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that’s the way it’ll remain for eternity.)
     
    if I'm not mistaken one of the richest countries in the world is Dubai, and last time I checked, they were hardly white. And Singapore and the burgeoning nations of Asia are hardly white, at least in the Euro sense. But the reason Europe looks like Europe and Africa looks like Africa, is because of the DNA of the respective people who live there. And that's just the simple, hard truth of it.
    , @anon
    Turning the developed world into the third world via immigration does not 'help' the third world. It just makes the west a third world area too.
  53. Realist says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but my strong impression is that over the last 6-7 years, net immigration to America has been something like 90% legal and maybe 10% illegal. Furthermore, all the estimates I've always seen are that roughly half of all illegals actually arrive legally on temporary visas or whatever, and then just overstay. So building a gigantic Mexico Wall would address roughly 5% of the immigration "problem," after which all of Trump's more ignorant followers would give a big cheer and stop paying any attention to the issue. Bill Clinton used to call that sort of thing "Boob Bait for the Bubbas."

    Even those raw numbers might understate the relative impact. Since WN Richard Spencer has been so ferociously demonized by the MSM, he's recently gotten a bit more courageous, and I saw a YouTube video a few weeks ago in which he pointed out that (from the WN perspective) legal immigrants are always much more of a problem than illegals. That's because most illegals come here planning to earn some money and then go home again (although they sometimes stay), while most legals arrive intending to stay here permanently.

    As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it's been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren't in that category), and the remainder probably aren't all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they're generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn't make much difference.

    One thing that prompted my comment was recently hearing some leading hard-core Alt-Right figure rant and rave about illegal immigration, then add that he wasn't too much concerned about legal immigrants because their numbers were so small by comparison. Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    “As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it’s been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren’t in that category), and the remainder probably aren’t all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they’re generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn’t make much difference.”

    I believe you are correct. That is why immigration should be limited to those with and IQ of 130 or greater and an interest in STEM endeavors. This country is quite capable of producing all the lower IQ people needed.

    Read More
  54. @Ron Unz
    Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but my strong impression is that over the last 6-7 years, net immigration to America has been something like 90% legal and maybe 10% illegal. Furthermore, all the estimates I've always seen are that roughly half of all illegals actually arrive legally on temporary visas or whatever, and then just overstay. So building a gigantic Mexico Wall would address roughly 5% of the immigration "problem," after which all of Trump's more ignorant followers would give a big cheer and stop paying any attention to the issue. Bill Clinton used to call that sort of thing "Boob Bait for the Bubbas."

    Even those raw numbers might understate the relative impact. Since WN Richard Spencer has been so ferociously demonized by the MSM, he's recently gotten a bit more courageous, and I saw a YouTube video a few weeks ago in which he pointed out that (from the WN perspective) legal immigrants are always much more of a problem than illegals. That's because most illegals come here planning to earn some money and then go home again (although they sometimes stay), while most legals arrive intending to stay here permanently.

    As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it's been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren't in that category), and the remainder probably aren't all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they're generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn't make much difference.

    One thing that prompted my comment was recently hearing some leading hard-core Alt-Right figure rant and rave about illegal immigration, then add that he wasn't too much concerned about legal immigrants because their numbers were so small by comparison. Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    Well, different commentators, depending on their ideological orientation, see and address different ‘problems’.

    From a non-racist perspective, I would say that legal immigration should present much less of a socioeconomic problem. The main reason being, of course, that legal emigration can be regulated; the numbers can be reduced or increased, and various requirements (education, age, professional qualification) can be introduced or adjusted. I understand: you’re saying it’s not being done, but at least with legal immigration it’s in the realm of possibility.

    The other extremely important aspect is that legal immigrants exist and operate (mostly) within the legal framework – as opposed to the illegals existing and operating within the framework of illegal, underground society and economy. Therefore the illegals can’t be integrated, and they are very easily exploited (suppression of wages).

    Read More
  55. fitzGetty says:
    @Chris Mallory

    When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.
     
    None of these groups became "Americans". They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants. All of these groups were harmful to the nation our Founders left to their posterity.

    Ellis Island should be a place of mourning, it was the open sore that allowed hordes of invaders into the body of America.

    … they were treated with a firm hand – and merged … not much of a sign of a firm hand in Minnesota or Minneapolis these days, lads .

    Read More
  56. alexander says:
    @Rurik
    Hey SC,

    Yea, I already pointed out that the wall is really symbolic, but it might help with smuggling some drugs and other stuff, like Eric Holders automatic weapons program for the cartels and such. But that would have more to do with keeping things in the US, as opposed to keeping them out. Which is another good point that Ron Paul brought up, and that's that we shouldn't be too keen on the wall, when one day it might to used to keep us in, like a Gaza type of open air prison.

    As for the “visible symbol of an invisible commitment to sovereignty.” and respecting other people's sovereignty, you know very well that I'm that last person you have to make that argument to. But then I don't blame plumbers and waitresses for the myriad enormities that my fiendish government had been committing all over the world. I blame the war criminals and traitors. I blame Bush and Obama and Tony Blair and Holonde and Merkel and John McStain.

    And I've been harping on that mantra for even long before I started posting here. Occasionally I even alienate people. Some guys will ask me if I saw that Clint Eastwood movie about the sniper, and I'll say 'no, because they made it seem like Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and that is a lie'. And I'll watch them squirm, and think that I'm some sort of pinko liberal or something. But I hate lies and I hate treachery and murder and wars for fun and profit. And I'm outspoken about it.

    Anyways, yes of course we need to repudiate the war criminals and demand an end to the serial atrocities our government and CIA have been committing.

    I suspect that one of the agendas for importing millions of Muslims into the West is to cause strife, and create hostility between Muslim and Germans for instance. So that the next time the Zios want Germany to fight one of their wars for them, the people will be that much more willing, having suffered the scourge of diversity up close and personal. Look at that psycho in Norway who shot all those Norwegian children on that island. He hated Muslims, and lauded Israel, not having any idea it seems that the only reason Muslims were in Norway was because the Zionists wanted them there. It isn't Muslims that control the governments of the West now is it?

    Anyways, I agree with your sentiments, and only hope that Trump will both end the wars, and end the mass immigration, both into Europe (by setting an example) and the US. And then once he's helped Putin crush ISIS, the US and Russia and Europe can begin the long process of rebuilding the parts of the Middle East that they've been used by the Zionists to destroy.

    And Hillary and Obama can join Holonde and all the others at the Hague. We'll make the 21st century once of peace and brotherhood and mutual respect, and a repudiation of the wars and horrors of the last century, not a continuation. Yes?

    Yes, Rurik, absolutely yes !

    I think a far more pressing issue than our “wall”, is how the Donald chooses to confront our venal establishments addiction to” Terror Fraud” , “False Flagging”, and “War Fraud”.

    How is he going to engage this, considering it is a behavior none can discuss yet nearly all are aware by now,is going on ?

    Will he do what Obama did, and just capitulate and carry on with the deep state’s pernicious parasitic behavior ?

    How dependent are our war industries, spy industries, and homeland industries on generating phony terror events to keep the money flowing from our coffers into their pockets?

    With our debt now having surpassed our GDP, and having grown to a whopping 20 trillion in just 15 years, can we really continue to afford these enormous drains on our nations wealth, if the causes for them are largely fabricated constructs performed by the security industries, themselves ?

    It is the most difficult issue our President must confront, considering how deeply entrenched our war and terror profiteers , have become ?

    It is not a healthy situation. In fact, it is quite dire.

    Even our security industries, as well as our CIA, must concede this, too.

    The most powerful economy in the world may have reached its limits on expending humongous sums of money on lots of phony behavior.

    How will our President grapple with this “undiscussable” carnage ?.

    How would you deal with it , if you were he ?

    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    how the Donald chooses to confront our venal establishments addiction to” Terror Fraud” , “False Flagging”,
     
    Trump is a New York developer, Alex. He knows a little bit about how buildings are constructed, and how likely they are to plop into their basements because of an office fire. IOW, he knows Alex. But then he's also good friends with people like Giuliani, who was complicit on 9/11, so it's impossible to know what's in his heart vis-a-vis these serial false flags, and more to the point, 9/11 in particular.

    How dependent are our war industries, spy industries, and homeland industries on generating phony terror events to keep the money flowing from our coffers into their pockets?
     
    if he decides to end the Eternal WarsⓊ, and then decides to audit the Fed, then I would consider him something of a Second Coming, and to punctuate that, they would surely crucify him- no less than they did the first One.

    It would be deja vu all over again, only two thousand years later. And just like with the first One, the people would stand by and allow it all to happen. And then suffer the consequences, which would surely amount to the damnation of their eternal souls.

    How will our President grapple with this “undiscussable” carnage ?.

    How would you deal with it , if you were he ?
     
    the same way he is Alex, by playing ball with the devil, until such time as he can implement an iron security dome around himself, and surround himself with people who are loyal.

    If he really does intend on shutting off the slop spigot to the MIC and "intelligence" acronyms trough, then he'd better get braced for some squealing the likes of which would make that guy from Deliverance sound like an Etonian educated royalty.
  57. Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
    Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people. If Trump only stops this nonsense it will have been a successful presidency.

    Read More
  58. KenH says:

    Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?

    Simple. People who are biologically similar and have common ancestors. In other words, race. Read John Jay’s address where he refers to “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….”. That is the very antithesis of a militant multiculturalism that rules over America today.

    Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?

    Abstractions like limited government or civil nationalism don’t resonate with the vast majority of non-whites. They believe in ethnic and racial might make right and “us vs. them (white people)”. Abstractions and doctrines of racial equality only resonate with white Europeans which will lead to their genocide if they don’t reject these things and fast.

    To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.

    Au contraire, Patrick. The left champions every form of racial, ethnic and national identity except those of whites and majority white nations. The Democrat party is now the party of non-white racial chauvinism with emphasis on black and brown racial interests.

    Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.

    Conversely, 80% of Trump’s votes came from white people, so the implications are pretty obvious. Non-whites vote against whites and whites vote against them.

    This “civic nationalism” being touted by Steve Bannon and Trump is yet another useless abstraction and variant of race neutral conservatism. It is just the latest ham handed attempt to make multiracial America work. Even if by some miracle it achieves a measure of success it won’t outlive Trump’s administration. Anyone who thinks large numbers of non-whites will reject the race baiting and race chauvinism offered by the Democrats in favor of civic nationalism is a fool.

    Read More
  59. moi says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, all pomposity aside, there's, of course, a much better way to prevent illegal economic migration than building walls: prosecute, to the full extent of the law, a bunch of businesses and individuals who hire undocumented workers. No SSN, fake SSN - if you're paying wages to someone who is not allowed to be employed in the US - your business goes bankrupt, and you're going to jail for a few years. And voila - businesses and individuals stop employing illegals, and the illegals all go home. No walls necessary.

    I’ve been saying the same thing for some time–go after the employers who hire illegals. It’s a quicker, cheaper, and more intelligent solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Build the wall AND target employer of illegal aliens with crippling fines and serious felony jail time. End birthright citizenship and family reunification chain migration. We can and must employ all these measures if we are serious about the survival of our people, economy, language, and culture.

    And, as Trump proposed in his campaign book, tax remittances to foreign countries to pay for the wall.
  60. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but my strong impression is that over the last 6-7 years, net immigration to America has been something like 90% legal and maybe 10% illegal. Furthermore, all the estimates I've always seen are that roughly half of all illegals actually arrive legally on temporary visas or whatever, and then just overstay. So building a gigantic Mexico Wall would address roughly 5% of the immigration "problem," after which all of Trump's more ignorant followers would give a big cheer and stop paying any attention to the issue. Bill Clinton used to call that sort of thing "Boob Bait for the Bubbas."

    Even those raw numbers might understate the relative impact. Since WN Richard Spencer has been so ferociously demonized by the MSM, he's recently gotten a bit more courageous, and I saw a YouTube video a few weeks ago in which he pointed out that (from the WN perspective) legal immigrants are always much more of a problem than illegals. That's because most illegals come here planning to earn some money and then go home again (although they sometimes stay), while most legals arrive intending to stay here permanently.

    As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it's been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren't in that category), and the remainder probably aren't all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they're generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn't make much difference.

    One thing that prompted my comment was recently hearing some leading hard-core Alt-Right figure rant and rave about illegal immigration, then add that he wasn't too much concerned about legal immigrants because their numbers were so small by comparison. Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem

    Read More
  61. Duglarri says:

    Mr. Buchanan runs through the question of nationality, and citizenship, and arrives at a very fundamental question: can a brown person be an American?

    Can a brown person adopt Americanism, love football, eat apple pie, believe in freedom, serve in the U.S. Army, and be an American? Were the great traditions of the American state the result of a system of thought, one that can be learned, or are they the result of skin color?

    Is the great American experiment for all people, or just for Brits and Germans? Can others join?

    Sadly, Mr. Buchanan answers: no. Only whites need apply.

    Can we all agree that this is racist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    can a brown person be an American?
     
    this is ridiculous

    no one on this planet is more quintessentially American than the Amerindians that were on this continent when the white man arrived. They, along with the blacks that were brought over here in chains, along with the whites who arrived from places like Ireland and Eastern Europe along with the Jews and Italians and all the rest, make up the fabric of what and who are Americans today. We're all part and parcel of that construct, and we know who we are, and who we aren't.

    Who we are, are the people that have lived here and marinated in the culture and meaning of being an American. Our identities are a mixture of Apache and Blackfoot and all the tribes, and the descendants of men who came with Columbus and those who came on the Mayflower. The blacks who struggled though Jim Crow and the whites who work in the mines of West Virginia. We're all very much Americans. And that's who we are.

    Who we're not is everybody. Americans are not the world's population including every single person from every single culture and backwater that can get to these shores and sign up for their EBT card and start voting for Hillary, who will tax the real Americans to get all the rest of non-American's relatives to this country to vote for more of them to come, until Hillary is the undisputed leader of the world, with tens of millions of non-Americans voting for her to tax the Americans to the poorhouse in order to ship in millions upon millions more non-Americans so that she can get even more powerful.

    Americans are the ones who were born here and love America's traditions of freedom, (above all else!), or have embraced all that America means; self-reliance, individuality, the rule of law, respect of her traditions and collective heritage and honoring her people, laws and constitution. That's who Americas are, brown, black, yellow, red or white. We know who we are, and who we aren't. And just importing tens of millions Spanish speaking Mexicans or Hondurans, with zero appreciation for our ways and culture, does not make them an American just because they're on the Obamacare rolls for health insurance.

    It goes deeper than that, as all true Americans know. Just like I can't walk into Mexico, and hang out there for a year or two, and consider myself a Mexican. Duh.

    , @anon
    "Can we all agree that this is racist".

    NO. NOT AT ALL.

    You start from an fundamentally flawed perspective, that America is some kind of "experiment", like a science project or something. IT IS NOT. America was a European-derived country built by and created by essentially white people. This doesn't mean that a "brown person" can not be a good citizen, but it is neither a reason for or a justification of any major transformation of the demographic balance of the country.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You're not even making sense. Now all white people are British and German?

    Luckily for the USA, we have benefited culturally, economically, genetically, and militarily by having tens of millions of citizens who are also descended from the many, many other white European/near-European nations, e.g. France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Russia, Greece, etc. The melting pot, in time, worked very well and made us stronger when it was these ethnicities and cultures we were absorbing and assimilating.

    Does this mean we need or would be wise, on balance, to let in more Africans, Muslims, Chinese? Hell no.

    By the way, are you also offended and righteously indignant about the Japanese keeping their country Japanese? Or is it bad only when white people try to keep their countries white European in majority population and character?

    Can you admit that you think racial identity and unity are bad only for white people but okay for others?

    Also, nobody here contends that mere skin color is what matters for our culture. Race genetically determines or influences a host of traits and potentials that go far beyond skin color, and you know that. Straw man much?

  62. Rurik says:
    @Numinous
    Different people have different motivations. I'm not a left-liberal type, so you don't have to read between the lines to glean mine; take my statements at face value.

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade ("free" or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you'll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall. If your goal is "protecting your culture and ethnic heritage", you'll be able to do that for a while simply because you have immense resources (and in the US's case, geography) to wall yourselves off. But it'll be short-lived. Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.

    So if you are really concerned for your grand-children and great-grand-children, and not just about yourself, you'll have to learn to compromise. For my part, my preference is for trade over migration. You can curtail most immigration if you want, but allow some amount of offshoring and outsourcing. That will improve the fortunes of poor countries over a long term. (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that's the way it'll remain for eternity.)

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade (“free” or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)

    as an advocate for poor countries, you do understand, don’t you.. that allowing for immigration from poor to developed countries, it will necessarily mean that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries and head to the developed ones, thereby depriving the poorer nations of their best human capital. (yes, it’s true, alas, that not all men are create equal)

    I tend to side with Jefferson on matters of state and race, and agree with him on harboring no ill-will towards any, and trading with all, and well-wishes towards all, but also protecting one’s own when considering what’s best for the country and one’s fellow countrymen and women. That’s all. Trade when it’s beneficial to do so. Tariffs when it comes to protecting ones own industries and wages. And punishment for corporate greedy execs who would betray their nation and countrymen to build factories in China for bigger profits at the expense of the people they plan on selling those trinkets to.

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you’ll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall.

    you know what destabilizes countries?

    Bombing them.

    How about we start, by ending the bombing and droning and serial destabilizations that our CIA and State Dept. have been doing in places like Syria and Ukraine? That would seem like a good start to me to foment prosperity and harmony in the world, and in poor countries. The best thing we can do for poor countries is trade with them. And get Goldman Sachs to stop corrupting them with unpayable debt. Eh? Let’s stop the American vulture capitalists from picking at the bones of nations like Argentina. Let’s stop destabilizing entire poor regions and droning them and propping up super-corrupt regime like the House of Saud. How would that be to help the world’s poor and put upon people, if we’d just stop doing all we can to harm them? I think that’d be a great start, personally.

    We should trade with Mexico and everyone else, but an open border is insane, and intended to destroy the lifestyle of the white majority of the US and plunge them into poverty and low wages, which suits the pigs in the GOP just fine, and creates voters for the DNC. While it harms and creates strife and misery for everyone else. Build the wall.

    Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.

    because they rotted from internal corruption, just like the US is doing.

    (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that’s the way it’ll remain for eternity.)

    if I’m not mistaken one of the richest countries in the world is Dubai, and last time I checked, they were hardly white. And Singapore and the burgeoning nations of Asia are hardly white, at least in the Euro sense. But the reason Europe looks like Europe and Africa looks like Africa, is because of the DNA of the respective people who live there. And that’s just the simple, hard truth of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    it will necessarily mean that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries and head to the developed ones, thereby depriving the poorer nations of their best human capital. (yes, it’s true, alas, that not all men are create equal)
     
    It is generally true that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries, but the evidence in the past 3-4 decades suggests that is not detrimental to the source countries as used to be once thought. That used to be the prevailing view in my country (India) until at least the early 90s, when "brain drain" was considered one of the most serious problems facing the nation. But India has had its most sustained period of economic growth since the 90s even with an acceleration of this so-called brain drain; a big contrast to our socialist period from the 50s to the 80s, when we were a byword for poverty with our "Hindu rate of growth". It turns out that (1) physical presence of the "best and brightest" is not necessary for a society to progress; some limited ties are sufficient (remittances, knowledge transfer, promoting trade links, etc.) and probably necessary, and (2) the source countries don't stop producing smart people. You have to understand that the best and the brightest cannot achieve much in a silo, so asking them to stay home and improve their countries (in stultifying atmospheres) is asking for a bit much.

    Anyway, I don't want to pretend to be an open immigration advocate. As I wrote in my previous comment, I have no problem with the US and other rich countries limiting legal immigration. I much prefer reasonably open trade links, and the ability of smart people to work with each other across international boundaries to solve problems in their respective countries. Currently, a tangle of protectionist labor labor laws (in all countries) makes this still quite hard.

    Singapore and the burgeoning nations of Asia are hardly white, at least in the Euro sense.
     
    Sure, but as I indicated earlier, trade and multinationals are the lifeblood of Singapore, and it has a LOT of foreigners on work visas at any given time. Its leaders (like the late great LKY) carefully engineered the country to be a trade hub. If international trade goes into a slump, so will Singapore. Similarly, Taiwan has cornered a lot of electronics manufacturing business that once used to be in the US (isn't Foxconn based there?), so if Trump is serious about bringing those plants back home, Taiwan could see worse days.

    But the reason Europe looks like Europe and Africa looks like Africa, is because of the DNA of the respective people who live there.
     
    I realize I can't talk you out of your position, but let me just offer that Africa in the 19th century was roughly in a place where Northern Europeans were during the early days of the Roman Republic. So give them some time, will you. As has been often discussed on Steve Sailer's blog, Africa is a relatively sparsely populated continent with rich natural resources. There is potential there.
  63. Rurik says:
    @alexander
    Yes, Rurik, absolutely yes !


    I think a far more pressing issue than our "wall", is how the Donald chooses to confront our venal establishments addiction to" Terror Fraud" , "False Flagging", and "War Fraud".

    How is he going to engage this, considering it is a behavior none can discuss yet nearly all are aware by now,is going on ?

    Will he do what Obama did, and just capitulate and carry on with the deep state's pernicious parasitic behavior ?

    How dependent are our war industries, spy industries, and homeland industries on generating phony terror events to keep the money flowing from our coffers into their pockets?

    With our debt now having surpassed our GDP, and having grown to a whopping 20 trillion in just 15 years, can we really continue to afford these enormous drains on our nations wealth, if the causes for them are largely fabricated constructs performed by the security industries, themselves ?

    It is the most difficult issue our President must confront, considering how deeply entrenched our war and terror profiteers , have become ?

    It is not a healthy situation. In fact, it is quite dire.

    Even our security industries, as well as our CIA, must concede this, too.

    The most powerful economy in the world may have reached its limits on expending humongous sums of money on lots of phony behavior.

    How will our President grapple with this "undiscussable" carnage ?.

    How would you deal with it , if you were he ?




    .

    how the Donald chooses to confront our venal establishments addiction to” Terror Fraud” , “False Flagging”,

    Trump is a New York developer, Alex. He knows a little bit about how buildings are constructed, and how likely they are to plop into their basements because of an office fire. IOW, he knows Alex. But then he’s also good friends with people like Giuliani, who was complicit on 9/11, so it’s impossible to know what’s in his heart vis-a-vis these serial false flags, and more to the point, 9/11 in particular.

    How dependent are our war industries, spy industries, and homeland industries on generating phony terror events to keep the money flowing from our coffers into their pockets?

    if he decides to end the Eternal WarsⓊ, and then decides to audit the Fed, then I would consider him something of a Second Coming, and to punctuate that, they would surely crucify him- no less than they did the first One.

    It would be deja vu all over again, only two thousand years later. And just like with the first One, the people would stand by and allow it all to happen. And then suffer the consequences, which would surely amount to the damnation of their eternal souls.

    How will our President grapple with this “undiscussable” carnage ?.

    How would you deal with it , if you were he ?

    the same way he is Alex, by playing ball with the devil, until such time as he can implement an iron security dome around himself, and surround himself with people who are loyal.

    If he really does intend on shutting off the slop spigot to the MIC and “intelligence” acronyms trough, then he’d better get braced for some squealing the likes of which would make that guy from Deliverance sound like an Etonian educated royalty.

    Read More
  64. Duglarri says:
    @Rurik

    suppose Trump builds a Mexico Wall that’s 700 feet high and studded with automatic-firing machine-guns. How would that have any impact on *legal* immigration?
     
    it wouldn't of course, but legal immigration has to be voted on or otherwise mandated, and that makes a congress-critter accountable. Whereas illegal immigration is just something they can allow with a wink and a nod. It accomplishes the same thing in the end, by lowering the wages and Democrat voters and other agendas, but they can all pretend that there's just nothing they can do about it if they're illegal.

    The wall is more symbolic than anything else. It's telling the world that America has a border and means to keep it. Also it helps presumably with smuggling and such.

    But you're right, the place to start is with legal immigration.

    I once heard Ted Cruz mention that if people had such a problem with illegals being in the country, then the obvious solution was simply to make them all legal. Problem solved!

    So you're right there is some cowardice out there when it comes to saying that it's not simply a case of legal vs. illegal, but rather a case of America protecting its cultural and ethnic character. A lot of Americans don't want to see the kind of strife that you get when you force radically different people into the same space. Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant. Norway and New Zealand and Iceland routinely end up on lists of nations considered the most pleasant places to live. The occupied territories not so much. And I suspect that has something to do with ethnic harmony and cultural homogeneity, vs. ethnic and cultural and religious diversity / hostility.

    (I see I also was participating in the commentary on the article you linked to as well, Mr. Unz. A natural born bloviater I guess ; )

    Hi Rurik,

    “Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant”- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of “pleasantness”, in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don’t judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it’s all working some time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'd say the (culturally) homogeneous nations are actually the least pleasant. Plain boring, usually, especially the northern ones. But that's a matter of taste, I suppose.
    , @Rurik

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don’t judge a man by the color of his skin;
     
    if I say Japan is happier being homogeneously Japanese, and they would be ill advised to import millions of Muslims into Japan, does that mean that I'm condemning everyone who isn't ethnic Japanese, or have their exact hue of skin color?

    Why is it that if you say a nation has a right to a border and a right to protect its ethnic identity, then that automatically must mean that you're judging people based on skin color. That's outrageously stupid, you know. And offensive.

    I've been to Canada many times. I know it well. Better than you'd think. How well is diversity working out for the Quebecois, eh? They too want to protect their unique identity and culture and language and all the rest. There are a lot of them that don't want to be inundated with Haitians and Muslims and arrogant English speaking 'square heads'. They love their culture and are forced to watch it all melted away by diversity and hegemonic English-speaking commerce and crass commercialism. Many of them desperately want to secede from the queen's colony, and honor their own heritage. Does that mean they're 'judging people by the color of their skin'?

    for you to try to smear me for 'judging a man for the color of his skin', when I've marinated in the hate and bile of people who do just that, with moral abominations like Affirmative Action, is really quite beyond the pale, my Canadian friend.
    , @anon
    Canada was working just fine before the 1970's when it was more then 98% white. There are now whole areas of Toronto I wouldn't go to. What you say sport sounds nice but it just doesn't play out in the real world.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Are you really comparing the extremely closely genetically and culturally related white European peoples who make up traditional Switzerland -- Germans, French, and Italians, with an insignificant smattering of Romansch who make up one percent of the population -- with the vastly different races and cultures that our elites are cramming into the USA and other western lands in recent years? Really?

    I have long been a canadaphile, not to mention a big hockey fan. But Canada too isn't what it used to be and is changing largely for the worse (ok, except for the wide range of ethnic restaurants, which I love there or here ;)

    I lived in Vancouver area (Richmond) for a couple years. While it was simply beautiful physically, I found quite many of the people, especially the Chinese and the lefty wiseass whites, to be markedly UNpleasant and passive aggressive, unfriendly, or rude. (Perhaps ironically, the devoutly Christian Indian and Filipino people I mostly hung out with were pretty good on the whole, even if I ideally wouldn't have admitted so damn many of them and their coethnics.)

  65. Rurik says:
    @Duglarri
    Mr. Buchanan runs through the question of nationality, and citizenship, and arrives at a very fundamental question: can a brown person be an American?

    Can a brown person adopt Americanism, love football, eat apple pie, believe in freedom, serve in the U.S. Army, and be an American? Were the great traditions of the American state the result of a system of thought, one that can be learned, or are they the result of skin color?

    Is the great American experiment for all people, or just for Brits and Germans? Can others join?

    Sadly, Mr. Buchanan answers: no. Only whites need apply.

    Can we all agree that this is racist?

    can a brown person be an American?

    this is ridiculous

    no one on this planet is more quintessentially American than the Amerindians that were on this continent when the white man arrived. They, along with the blacks that were brought over here in chains, along with the whites who arrived from places like Ireland and Eastern Europe along with the Jews and Italians and all the rest, make up the fabric of what and who are Americans today. We’re all part and parcel of that construct, and we know who we are, and who we aren’t.

    Who we are, are the people that have lived here and marinated in the culture and meaning of being an American. Our identities are a mixture of Apache and Blackfoot and all the tribes, and the descendants of men who came with Columbus and those who came on the Mayflower. The blacks who struggled though Jim Crow and the whites who work in the mines of West Virginia. We’re all very much Americans. And that’s who we are.

    Who we’re not is everybody. Americans are not the world’s population including every single person from every single culture and backwater that can get to these shores and sign up for their EBT card and start voting for Hillary, who will tax the real Americans to get all the rest of non-American’s relatives to this country to vote for more of them to come, until Hillary is the undisputed leader of the world, with tens of millions of non-Americans voting for her to tax the Americans to the poorhouse in order to ship in millions upon millions more non-Americans so that she can get even more powerful.

    Americans are the ones who were born here and love America’s traditions of freedom, (above all else!), or have embraced all that America means; self-reliance, individuality, the rule of law, respect of her traditions and collective heritage and honoring her people, laws and constitution. That’s who Americas are, brown, black, yellow, red or white. We know who we are, and who we aren’t. And just importing tens of millions Spanish speaking Mexicans or Hondurans, with zero appreciation for our ways and culture, does not make them an American just because they’re on the Obamacare rolls for health insurance.

    It goes deeper than that, as all true Americans know. Just like I can’t walk into Mexico, and hang out there for a year or two, and consider myself a Mexican. Duh.

    Read More
  66. @Duglarri
    Hi Rurik,

    "Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant"- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of "pleasantness", in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don't judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it's all working some time.

    I’d say the (culturally) homogeneous nations are actually the least pleasant. Plain boring, usually, especially the northern ones. But that’s a matter of taste, I suppose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    and cold.
    , @RadicalCenter
    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of "diversity" that was still compatible with social cohesion, affection, loyalty, and high levels of trust, productivity, and compassion. We should have stopped there. It wasn't boring at all.
  67. KenH says:
    @Numinous
    Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries. Why shouldn't it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Now, if you are desperate to prevent that, you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time. The ONLY way to achieve that is to trade with those countries, allowing them to use their primary market advantage (low labor cost) to produce a net win-win situation (yes, some sectors in developed countries suffer, and that is very unfortunate, but that can be fixed by doing a great deal more to help those people in a targeted manner rather than trying to shatter globalism.)

    But you are vehemently anti-trade too. So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous and simultaneously prevent them from migrating; in effect, making their countries giant concentration camps. And you really wonder what people in poorer countries will think of this?

    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn't.

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries.

    And if you were historically literate you would know that old Europe had to fend off invasions from Asians (Huns & Mongols) since the fall of Rome and Muslims since its appearance in the 7th century. Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.

    Europe is expected to wring its hands and self flagellate for its prior colonizations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?

    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline….

    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren’t letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death and adopt policies that dramatically increase the native white birthrate while repatriating Muslims and Africans to their countries of origin.

    …..and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.
     
    I never said it was. To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.) From the perspective of the destination countries, immigration could simply be regarded as lending a helping hand to poor countries and giving them a shot at prospering. This is a vastly superior alternative to foreign aid, which is often worse than useless.

    But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?
     
    They ought to, and the Turks have no moral standing to question or guilt-trip Western Europeans. My sympathies are entirely with the victims of Turkish depredations. I was quite pro-Serb during the recent Balkan wars. I am pro-Greek Cypriots, etc.

    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren’t letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death
     
    Truth be told, when I talk favorably of immigration, I'm not referring to the European continent, which has long-settled homogeneous "tribes" and high population densities (so do Japan and Israel.) I was talking about the various settler countries, like the US, which have a lot more resources per person and can afford a lot more in-migration. You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?


    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts' customs. It's the second and later generations that ghettoizes. This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness. This is a battle that Europeans have to fight with other Europeans, not with foreigners and immigrants.
  68. Rurik says:
    @Duglarri
    Hi Rurik,

    "Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant"- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of "pleasantness", in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don't judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it's all working some time.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don’t judge a man by the color of his skin;

    if I say Japan is happier being homogeneously Japanese, and they would be ill advised to import millions of Muslims into Japan, does that mean that I’m condemning everyone who isn’t ethnic Japanese, or have their exact hue of skin color?

    Why is it that if you say a nation has a right to a border and a right to protect its ethnic identity, then that automatically must mean that you’re judging people based on skin color. That’s outrageously stupid, you know. And offensive.

    I’ve been to Canada many times. I know it well. Better than you’d think. How well is diversity working out for the Quebecois, eh? They too want to protect their unique identity and culture and language and all the rest. There are a lot of them that don’t want to be inundated with Haitians and Muslims and arrogant English speaking ‘square heads’. They love their culture and are forced to watch it all melted away by diversity and hegemonic English-speaking commerce and crass commercialism. Many of them desperately want to secede from the queen’s colony, and honor their own heritage. Does that mean they’re ‘judging people by the color of their skin’?

    for you to try to smear me for ‘judging a man for the color of his skin’, when I’ve marinated in the hate and bile of people who do just that, with moral abominations like Affirmative Action, is really quite beyond the pale, my Canadian friend.

    Read More
  69. @Rurik

    The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.
     
    and that struggle is right of the people of the West to exist~ or not

    the wall is a symbolic message to the rest of the world that we have no intention of going gently into that goodnight, thankyouverymuch

    from New Zealand to Norway, we are determined to persevere as a race and a people, and no amount of butt-hurt screeching of 'racists!' or 'anti-Semites' will work anymore to corrode our resolve.

    we know now what you intend for us- and that is our collective genocide by blending. Because you, (and you know who I'm talking to Moshe) want to see us degraded and destroyed. Not that you don't have legions of willing armies of Muslims and Mexicans, Africans and everyone else who would be only too happy to see their people, who often harbor a visceral resentment (hatred) for our kind, crush us all under their immigration boot. Together you hope that your armies of BLM, LGBT, radical feminist cows, Islamic hegemons, Hispanic and Asian and African immigrants, and everybody else... can overwhelm whitey and take what he has and lord it over him, as his children become your slaves and his property and lands divided up between you. Huh?

    we all know that now. We know the grand agenda, and we're just not on board. Ok?

    Yes, we've heard your screeching for 50 years and more about what a vile and racist people we are, and how we've all enslaved you and Holocausted you and persecuted you and stolen your lands and occupied you and colonized you and all the rest~ ad naseam.

    but when we've grown up poor, and often unemployed and struggled against your open hostility from the pillars of power in our own governments and institutions, and managed to scratch out a living despite your Affirmative Action and other racist hurdles intended to hobble us and demean us. We've gotten a glimmer of your intentions along the way, and we now know what you have in mind for us.

    So The Wall is like that moment in history when Charles [The Hammer] Martel rallied his countrymen to waylay the Muslim hoards at the Battle of Tours, and save Europa from those whom would violate her, and destroy her for eternity. Trump is our modern day Charles [The Hammer] Martel. He's on the verge of going down in history as the Lion of the West, and the man who rallied the spirit of the Western man to persevere further into the future unfolding story of mankind, rather than see his story end in the 21st century, and buried under the teaming hoards of those who hate our Western ways and especially our people. And very much want to see us repudiated and plowed under the dirt of their collective butt-hurt.

    This iconic image from Paris says it all

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    the people who are for Trump's Wall see that image and are troubled, and would prefer that not to be France's or American's future.

    the people who're against The Wall, see that image and it sooths them and bolsters their sense of fair play and progress. 'That's what you get for being a 'racist, anti-Semite, Christian crusader, colonizer, oppressor, Holocauster, Nazi, gender specific, unreconstructed male, dying in wars to benefit your deadliest enemy! and on and on, ad nauseum.

    (has anyone noticed that it's the very, exact same people who love the wars... the Democrats like Hillary and Obama and the neocons like John McCain and the PNAC, CFR, et al, that are also for open borders?)

    If it were up to them, we'd have a war with Russia right now, and they'd see that scene from Paris repeated in every corner of the Western world, from Finland to Fargo. So we had better not leave it up to them. We had better take the reins of our destiny out of their hands and return it to ours, because failing to do so, is not just going to mean the end of California or Sweden, it's going to mean the end of us all. And that is the true meaning of Trump's (and Viktor Orbán's, and Marine Le Pen's, and Nigel Farage's) beautiful Wall(s).

    As for the wars and atrocities that the US zio-fecal government has visited upon so many parts of the world, if you're paying attention, you'll see that Trump is also spelling the end of all that madness and insanity. And it is both sides of that coin, the end of the Fiend's zio-wars, and the salvation of the West, that has the Fiend twisting in it's juices.

    here's Trump, telling the Fiend that his serial wars and genocidal agenda for the West is over

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPp7N5iyCWY

    That's what the Wall is all about

    So romanticized and bombastic. I agree that as you mentioned ‘christian crusaders’, yes and here is a quote: “Will rise up ethnos against ethnos and basileas (kingdoms against kingdoms) against basileas” Mark 13:8. The sad part is that there is not difference with God. I am a believer not in churchianity, but in Chirst, the son of the living God. I see all this as something coming, according to Holy Scripture, of races against races, predicted by My Lord Iessus, Christos, as named in Greek. All we have to prey is, “Let thine Kingdom come…” and may those millions of human beings mislead by messianic individuals, and or fallowing cults i.e. Koran, Talmud, etal, must come to the true knowledge of the only true God and his Only Son Iessus Christ! Love you all, in his name.

    And may our God from heaven have mercy upon his people in the USA! in Iessus Christ name.

    Read More
  70. Numinous says:
    @Rurik

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade (“free” or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)
     
    as an advocate for poor countries, you do understand, don't you.. that allowing for immigration from poor to developed countries, it will necessarily mean that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries and head to the developed ones, thereby depriving the poorer nations of their best human capital. (yes, it's true, alas, that not all men are create equal)

    I tend to side with Jefferson on matters of state and race, and agree with him on harboring no ill-will towards any, and trading with all, and well-wishes towards all, but also protecting one's own when considering what's best for the country and one's fellow countrymen and women. That's all. Trade when it's beneficial to do so. Tariffs when it comes to protecting ones own industries and wages. And punishment for corporate greedy execs who would betray their nation and countrymen to build factories in China for bigger profits at the expense of the people they plan on selling those trinkets to.

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you’ll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall.
     
    you know what destabilizes countries?

    Bombing them.

    How about we start, by ending the bombing and droning and serial destabilizations that our CIA and State Dept. have been doing in places like Syria and Ukraine? That would seem like a good start to me to foment prosperity and harmony in the world, and in poor countries. The best thing we can do for poor countries is trade with them. And get Goldman Sachs to stop corrupting them with unpayable debt. Eh? Let's stop the American vulture capitalists from picking at the bones of nations like Argentina. Let's stop destabilizing entire poor regions and droning them and propping up super-corrupt regime like the House of Saud. How would that be to help the world's poor and put upon people, if we'd just stop doing all we can to harm them? I think that'd be a great start, personally.

    We should trade with Mexico and everyone else, but an open border is insane, and intended to destroy the lifestyle of the white majority of the US and plunge them into poverty and low wages, which suits the pigs in the GOP just fine, and creates voters for the DNC. While it harms and creates strife and misery for everyone else. Build the wall.

    Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.
     
    because they rotted from internal corruption, just like the US is doing.

    (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that’s the way it’ll remain for eternity.)
     
    if I'm not mistaken one of the richest countries in the world is Dubai, and last time I checked, they were hardly white. And Singapore and the burgeoning nations of Asia are hardly white, at least in the Euro sense. But the reason Europe looks like Europe and Africa looks like Africa, is because of the DNA of the respective people who live there. And that's just the simple, hard truth of it.

    it will necessarily mean that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries and head to the developed ones, thereby depriving the poorer nations of their best human capital. (yes, it’s true, alas, that not all men are create equal)

    It is generally true that the best and brightest are going to leave the poor countries, but the evidence in the past 3-4 decades suggests that is not detrimental to the source countries as used to be once thought. That used to be the prevailing view in my country (India) until at least the early 90s, when “brain drain” was considered one of the most serious problems facing the nation. But India has had its most sustained period of economic growth since the 90s even with an acceleration of this so-called brain drain; a big contrast to our socialist period from the 50s to the 80s, when we were a byword for poverty with our “Hindu rate of growth”. It turns out that (1) physical presence of the “best and brightest” is not necessary for a society to progress; some limited ties are sufficient (remittances, knowledge transfer, promoting trade links, etc.) and probably necessary, and (2) the source countries don’t stop producing smart people. You have to understand that the best and the brightest cannot achieve much in a silo, so asking them to stay home and improve their countries (in stultifying atmospheres) is asking for a bit much.

    Anyway, I don’t want to pretend to be an open immigration advocate. As I wrote in my previous comment, I have no problem with the US and other rich countries limiting legal immigration. I much prefer reasonably open trade links, and the ability of smart people to work with each other across international boundaries to solve problems in their respective countries. Currently, a tangle of protectionist labor labor laws (in all countries) makes this still quite hard.

    Singapore and the burgeoning nations of Asia are hardly white, at least in the Euro sense.

    Sure, but as I indicated earlier, trade and multinationals are the lifeblood of Singapore, and it has a LOT of foreigners on work visas at any given time. Its leaders (like the late great LKY) carefully engineered the country to be a trade hub. If international trade goes into a slump, so will Singapore. Similarly, Taiwan has cornered a lot of electronics manufacturing business that once used to be in the US (isn’t Foxconn based there?), so if Trump is serious about bringing those plants back home, Taiwan could see worse days.

    But the reason Europe looks like Europe and Africa looks like Africa, is because of the DNA of the respective people who live there.

    I realize I can’t talk you out of your position, but let me just offer that Africa in the 19th century was roughly in a place where Northern Europeans were during the early days of the Roman Republic. So give them some time, will you. As has been often discussed on Steve Sailer’s blog, Africa is a relatively sparsely populated continent with rich natural resources. There is potential there.

    Read More
  71. @Rurik

    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline
     
    because we don't want to look like you, k?

    we like the way we look, (and think and act and otherwise are)

    does that make your butt-hurt?


    and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-e13753855622951.jpg

    you can help make the source countries of these migrants more prosperous so the pressure to emigrate reduces over time.
     
    the reason the Congo has the economy of the Congo, is because it's full of Congolese. If you swapped the population of Switzerland with the Congo, in ten years the Congo would look like Switzerland the Switzerland would look like the Congo. Duh

    trying to shatter globalism
     
    into a millions spinning pieces, and then spread salt on it's rotting carcass and make sure the beast never again raises its ugly Rothschild head.

    The third world countries y0u speak of have every opportunity to help themselves, and the West has provided unimaginable opportunities with technological miracles and sure, trade is a good thing all around. But what you're obviously advocating is a blending of the people and economies of the world so that in time Africa and Europe will look more and more like each other, both in terms of economic well-being, and ethnic identity, (or lack there of). And the people of Europe simply don't want to look like you. K?


    So your position is: prevent poor countries from getting more prosperous
     
    how so?

    no one is preventing poor countries from getting more prosperous. No one wants anyone to stay impoverished. Look at Singapore or so much of Asia. They used the technology developed and made available by the West, combined with their own resourcefulness, and are creating thriving, burgeoning nations. If Honduras or Mozambique want to do the same, who is stopping them? Eh?

    They have incredible resources in Africa and S. America, Asia, and elsewhere. Who is preventing them from creating amazing civilizations like the Europeans built in Oceana and everywhere else they go? Answer: no one. If the third world wants a leg up, then by all means we should all do what we can to give it to them. But if they just want to see Europe and N. America brought down to their level, then thanks, but no thanks.


    America complaining about poorer countries taking advantage of it via international trade is like a millionaire passing by a soup kitchen complaining how unfair it is that those wretches get to eat there while he doesn’t
     
    that's just stupid.

    we just like the kind of country and way of life that our ancestors built and handed to us, so that we can hand it to our children. And we don't want to see it all destroyed and sent reeling into a dystopian hell on earth of Balkanized strife and hatred and tribalism. Sorry about your butt-hurt, but that's just the way it is.

    Trump is going to build The Wall and end the Eternal WarsⓊ

    all hail the Lion of the West!

    Its so simple and true. My only regret is that for centuries the USA and Mexico were linked by proximity and to some extent resources. The difference is that the USA was colonized by people who came to find a new life and make it better, while Mexico was colonized by people who came for resources and to slave the population of the area. While the Spaniards plundered the resources and shipped them back to Spain, while caring nothing for the land, the Colonizers in the USA built infrastructure and wealth and strived to make the Nation powerful and prosperous, the Spaniards impoverished Mexico and the rest of the Americas. Further more, they forced upon the victims their religion and using that, caused a submissive population to trust in the catholic clergy with their lives, removing from within the initiative place upon the Protestant in the North. The American protestant went on to build his nation while the Mexican catholic was left destitute and soulless. The protestant went on to build the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth, the catholics went on to slave each other, and to live in a country where the wealth went up to their hierarchy of land owners, and the clergy, until now. So yes, believes are so important, because they guide your daily walk and dealings in life. Although the USA is now a post Christian nation, still enjoys the labors of our ancestors who came here and build what we do have. The question is: Are we going to preserve that legacy, or loose it? The younger generation is so afeminate and weak character wise, that I wonder if they have what it takes to preserve what our ancestors built with great sacrifices and effort.

    Read More
  72. Numinous says:
    @KenH

    Old Europe did not have a problem sending out its people to invade, colonize, and dominate other lands over much of the past 5 centuries.
     
    And if you were historically literate you would know that old Europe had to fend off invasions from Asians (Huns & Mongols) since the fall of Rome and Muslims since its appearance in the 7th century. Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.

    Europe is expected to wring its hands and self flagellate for its prior colonizations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?


    Why shouldn’t it let immigrants from those lands in their countries now, especially when it is facing demographic decline....
     
    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren't letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death and adopt policies that dramatically increase the native white birthrate while repatriating Muslims and Africans to their countries of origin.

    .....and the immigrants are peacefully coming in and subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to "subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.

    I never said it was. To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.) From the perspective of the destination countries, immigration could simply be regarded as lending a helping hand to poor countries and giving them a shot at prospering. This is a vastly superior alternative to foreign aid, which is often worse than useless.

    But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?

    They ought to, and the Turks have no moral standing to question or guilt-trip Western Europeans. My sympathies are entirely with the victims of Turkish depredations. I was quite pro-Serb during the recent Balkan wars. I am pro-Greek Cypriots, etc.

    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren’t letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death

    Truth be told, when I talk favorably of immigration, I’m not referring to the European continent, which has long-settled homogeneous “tribes” and high population densities (so do Japan and Israel.) I was talking about the various settler countries, like the US, which have a lot more resources per person and can afford a lot more in-migration. You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?

    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts’ customs. It’s the second and later generations that ghettoizes. This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness. This is a battle that Europeans have to fight with other Europeans, not with foreigners and immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "It's is the second and later generations that ghettoizes."

    BUT there would be NO 'second and later' generations, without the first one!

    "This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness".

    It could ALSO be solved, eliminated altogether, by just not having immigration in the first place! Japan is an example of this.
    , @KenH

    To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.
     
    Good to hear you are not a leftie. But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They're taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries. As the saying goes, how come there is an American dream but no Mexican dream, or Indian dream, or Pakistani dream, or African dream? It's because America has a white majority, but the larger question leads back to the racial and genetic qualities of differing peoples and the type of societies they create.

    You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

     

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process. There were no free lunches when the white settlers arrived, only hardship, conflict and death. Your plea to "give us a shot at doing that now" is not something the West can grant you since it's not the 17th century anymore and there isn't any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.

    People in Asia should resort to limiting their birthrates and fixing their own nations, not migrating en masse to America and Canada where in time you'll just replicate the conditions that caused you to flee in the first place.


    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts’ customs. It’s the second and later generations that ghettoizes.
     
    Perhaps when they are a tiny minority of perhaps less than 5%. But as their numbers grow they become more bellicose and antagonistic toward's the host people and their customs. They never truly assimilate because the host white culture is alien to them.

    This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness.
     
    If the white/Western host nations regained pride in their race, ethnicity and cultures then they wouldn't be meekly allowing third worlders into their societies to begin with. Assimilation generally doesn't work. With continued mass migration at some point America, the U.K. and Europe will stop being what they were (first world, majority white nations) and start being an agglomeration of third world races, religions and cultures which will bring dysfunction and conflict. No thanks.
  73. @anon
    "Since 80% of colored people vote Democratic, the Republicans will not survive the third-worldization of the USA".

    Makes you very seriously wonder why they never opposed it, tooth and nail, right from day one.
    You can also add the conservative parties of the U.K. and Canada to this sorry list of dumb chumps.

    “Makes you very seriously wonder why they never opposed it, tooth and nail, right from day one.”

    Don’t be so naive.

    The political filth work on the YBG IBG principle.
    You’ll be gone, I’ll be gone
    When the chickens come home to roost, in the meanwhile there’s looting to be done.

    Read More
  74. Veritatis says:

    What a good article, and what a fascinating comments section. If I remember my terms correctly:
    1) Nation: a group of people who SEE THEMSELVES as belonging to the same group. Usually sharing things like: language, or religion, race, culture, territory. Not always sharing all such things.
    2) State: a political entity in control of a territory, with a stable population, defined borders. Nowadays we include monopoly of violence and ability to conduct foreign relations.
    3) Nation-state: the correct mix of the above.
    4) Empire: a political entity in control of various nations, or nation-states.

    Thus, when Buchanan states the U.S. in 1960 was a Western Christian nation, it seems to me he is very clear in his terms, and correct in his argument, even if the Christian part was wobbling.

    It is easier to organize a society when members see each other as part of the same group, or “community”. With a common understanding of what, exactly, constitutes the common good. Then you can share, and clearly articulate, common goals. Recognize common threats also.

    If the U.S. were only to accept high IQ migration, that might take care of the Western part of “nation”, but that might not be enough to ensure all (now high IQ) Americans could live together harmoniously. Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened. So what can, in the case of the U.S., substitute for the Christian part of “nation”?

    But Trump is going to go ahead with the wall. What does that say to the world? To answer Buchanan, it says how the most powerful fellow on earth sees the world: as a competition for scarce resources. This is a fundamental shift from the “narrative” both in academic and government circles, where “win-win” schemes were mouthed, and attempted, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Trump means to do well by the average American, but to outsiders his international realism is aggressive. I believe other countries will naturally respond by becoming more “nationalists”. Not a Cold War, but the open search for a balance of power will become normal in the international sphere.

    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there’s a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened.
     
    It wasn't the German Jews who were the problem, it was explosive reproduction rates of impoverished Jews, and mass migration of Russian and Polish Jews, and Bolsheviks to Germany.
    see http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    E European Jews were filthy -- German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine; so did Jabotinsky himself. https://archive.org/stream/rebelandstatesma006978mbp/rebelandstatesma006978mbp_djvu.txt

    According to Rabbi Henry Abramson, 40% of Polish / Lithuanian Jews were illiterate. Many were lazy -- they called them some Yiddish word for "live on air;" no one knew what work they did or how they survived, possibly by stealing or black market.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeRpiVQ-9Y

    THESE are the Jews the NS objected to. German Jews did not have much use for them either. Same for American Jews -- they were a PITA and an embarrassment.

    , @Rurik
    Hello Veritatis,

    Great post as usual.

    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there’s a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.
     
    I'm an amateur student of history Veritatis, and one of my main areas of study is the world wars, and world war II in particular, but as every historian who studies these wars knows, they're not really two separate wars, but that the second one was a direct consequence of the injustices meted out during and following the first one.

    Anyways, when one studies these epic human atrocities, one is struck by the sheer momentous evil of it all. And by that I mean the incomprehensible suffering, and often for suffering's sake. And of course the scope, as some 60+ million people were slaughtered, often horribly, in the second war alone. And that doesn't count all the hundreds of millions of people who died from the murderous barbarity of their own governments- in that bloody and horrific century.

    Knowing all of this, and being fundamentally appalled at the demons that inhabit man's id, and his capacity for sadistic cruelty, I remember a quiet little prayer I made at the beginning of this century, that the forces of evil might be held at bay, and that I might live to see man evolving beyond those nightmarish images I had in my mind of emaciated bodies in ditches, and scenes from Dresden and Hiroshima and Nanking. That was my little prayer to the universe, or God or providence, or what have you. (I'm not a believer in any organized religion per se, but feel in my soul a great capacity for spirituality, nonetheless)

    So, knowing what I know about human nature, and the horrors of the twentieth century, and how most of those horrors, particularly in Europe and the Middle East were motivated and perpetrated by Zionists, when 9/11 happened, I lost heart.

    I knew this was the act of the Fiend, and that the intention and motivation for 9/11 was that the 21 century also be one of horrors writ large, and human suffering and injustice beyond comprehension. It changed my whole life when 9/11 happened, and I saw the Orwellian mendacity poison the narrative with its devil's lies 24/7.

    Soon my country was bombing and destroying other people's countries right and left. The Ministry of Truth was kicking out lies so fast my head spun. We were sacrificing our hard won freedoms for promises of security from the very people who had murdered so many of us on that singularly heinous day. I had very good reason for pessimism, and that might be the understatement of the century.

    So, when a man came to the fore, who seemed to question the merit and wisdom of all these wars, and called the politicians who waged them liars, I suddenly felt a surge of hope, for the first time since I lost it when Obama proved that he too was just another war criminal stooge.

    But it goes far deeper than just repudiating and ending the wars. Because Trump has also talked about auditing the Fed, and this is revolutionary Veritatis! It is my sincere belief, that all of the horrors of the world wars, and the unending strife and suffering in the Middle East, are all due to a small cabal of sinister men having concentrated control over the governments and media of the West, by using the Federal Reserve Bank to loot the wealth of the people and use their own money against them. The Fed is the center of it all. The Eye of Mordor, so to speak, out from which all these wars and strife and evil all emanate. We may manage to end some of these vastly unpopular wars for now, but as long as the Fed remains in control of our economies and wealth and money supply, we will be at the mercy of the men who control the Fed.

    So, if Trump, and others like him, like Putin in Russia, and Le Pen in France, etc.. can manage somehow to wrest control of the West from these dominant men, who have us all under an iron grip of control, and are using our own institutions against us, in order to enslave and destroy us, then he may not be the Second Coming, for sure, but when you consider the words and earnest prayers of the Christ Himself, that man learn to love his neighbors, rather than murder them, and to make peace, rather than wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, and how he turned over the tables of the money changers, and ordered them out of the temple of the Lord, well then for me, the divinity of the man saving the world is simply not an imperative, whether it's the Christ Himself, or simply a crass and egotistical man who loves more than he hates.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    re the IQ thing -- there were plenty of very high IQ people, women and men, making fools of themselves in DC on Jan 21.

    IQ is not the end-all and be-all; common sense, psychological/emotional maturity, and aesthetic and literary development require a renaissance if US nationalism is to regain its soul. imo those spiritual, characterological elements are far more difficult to communicate and develop than STEM.
  75. It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

    Couldn’t much the same be said about the Wall Street? Big banks and other corporations?

    In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith.

    Too bad that same “Christian” country forgot about the 4th commandment. Too bad it destroyed the guys who stood up to the godless Bolshies and gratuitously nuked people who had already lost the war before Pearl Harbor even happened in a totally unnecessary war. Didn’t you write a book about it sir, or was the only unnecessary part fighting the Germans?

    Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?

    This country has never lived up to its professed ideals and it keeps drifting further away from them. So who cares if this huge, bureaucratic, aggressive, welfare-warfare indebted behemoth disintegrates? Such a hideous monstrosity is long past its expiration date. I, for one, have long been tired of paying for it and the McCains and Clintons and Obombas of the world. I don’t think Trump is the Messiah either.

    As far as the wall is concerned, why build it? It won’t keep our troops and drones in…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    what's so bad about USA breaking into smaller parts?
    USA is too big, too diverse to be centrally governed.

    I could get used to the idea of separate regions for different ethnic groups. In a very loose federation, possibly.

    Californians are calling for a 'Calexit' from the US — here's how a secession could work
    http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-explainer-california-plans-to-secede-2016-11

    Go on and go

    Texas too

    and New York City can be its own state.

    All three have to pay a land tax to the Continental Governing Authority and they don't get protected by the CGA's defense apparatus -- which will be hugely diminished.

    All patents stay in CGA.

    Visas required to cross borders.

    hmm -- should walls be built along California's borders to keep them out of the CGA?

  76. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    What does this mean? Black Africans should colonize Europe because of the slave trade?

    No. Blacks would be more justified in colonizing themselves since blacks just sold off their excess slaves to Europeans. Or perhaps they should colonize the Arab world since Arabs took twice as many sub-Saharan black slaves as the trans-Atlantic trade did. In any case why would any Europeans want black or brown arrivals to his/her countries? What can they gain from it? Absolutely nothing.

    Read More
  77. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Numinous
    Different people have different motivations. I'm not a left-liberal type, so you don't have to read between the lines to glean mine; take my statements at face value.

    Look, my point was that you have to have one or the other of the following or a mix of both: 1) somewhat open immigration to developed countries, 2) trade ("free" or whatever) between rich and poor countries, even to the detriment of certain industrial sectors in the former (who can and should be compensated in other ways.)

    If you are going to advocate to put an end to both of these, you'll end up destabilizing poorer countries and driving their people up a wall. If your goal is "protecting your culture and ethnic heritage", you'll be able to do that for a while simply because you have immense resources (and in the US's case, geography) to wall yourselves off. But it'll be short-lived. Remember how the great civilizations of Eurasia were never able to resist the threat from the barbarian steppes, regardless of how powerful they got.

    So if you are really concerned for your grand-children and great-grand-children, and not just about yourself, you'll have to learn to compromise. For my part, my preference is for trade over migration. You can curtail most immigration if you want, but allow some amount of offshoring and outsourcing. That will improve the fortunes of poor countries over a long term. (And lastly, this will require shedding the alt-right shibboleth that rich countries are rich because they are white and poor countries poor because they are not, and that's the way it'll remain for eternity.)

    Turning the developed world into the third world via immigration does not ‘help’ the third world. It just makes the west a third world area too.

    Read More
  78. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Duglarri
    Mr. Buchanan runs through the question of nationality, and citizenship, and arrives at a very fundamental question: can a brown person be an American?

    Can a brown person adopt Americanism, love football, eat apple pie, believe in freedom, serve in the U.S. Army, and be an American? Were the great traditions of the American state the result of a system of thought, one that can be learned, or are they the result of skin color?

    Is the great American experiment for all people, or just for Brits and Germans? Can others join?

    Sadly, Mr. Buchanan answers: no. Only whites need apply.

    Can we all agree that this is racist?

    “Can we all agree that this is racist”.

    NO. NOT AT ALL.

    You start from an fundamentally flawed perspective, that America is some kind of “experiment”, like a science project or something. IT IS NOT. America was a European-derived country built by and created by essentially white people. This doesn’t mean that a “brown person” can not be a good citizen, but it is neither a reason for or a justification of any major transformation of the demographic balance of the country.

    Read More
  79. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Duglarri
    Hi Rurik,

    "Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant"- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of "pleasantness", in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don't judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it's all working some time.

    Canada was working just fine before the 1970′s when it was more then 98% white. There are now whole areas of Toronto I wouldn’t go to. What you say sport sounds nice but it just doesn’t play out in the real world.

    Read More
  80. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Numinous

    Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.
     
    I never said it was. To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.) From the perspective of the destination countries, immigration could simply be regarded as lending a helping hand to poor countries and giving them a shot at prospering. This is a vastly superior alternative to foreign aid, which is often worse than useless.

    But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?
     
    They ought to, and the Turks have no moral standing to question or guilt-trip Western Europeans. My sympathies are entirely with the victims of Turkish depredations. I was quite pro-Serb during the recent Balkan wars. I am pro-Greek Cypriots, etc.

    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren’t letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death
     
    Truth be told, when I talk favorably of immigration, I'm not referring to the European continent, which has long-settled homogeneous "tribes" and high population densities (so do Japan and Israel.) I was talking about the various settler countries, like the US, which have a lot more resources per person and can afford a lot more in-migration. You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?


    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts' customs. It's the second and later generations that ghettoizes. This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness. This is a battle that Europeans have to fight with other Europeans, not with foreigners and immigrants.

    “It’s is the second and later generations that ghettoizes.”

    BUT there would be NO ‘second and later’ generations, without the first one!

    “This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness”.

    It could ALSO be solved, eliminated altogether, by just not having immigration in the first place! Japan is an example of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    BUT there would be NO ‘second and later’ generations, without the first one!
     

    While true, it is moot. There have been many generations of non-whites in this country that are as American as the rest of us, whether the original immigrants were Chinese, Indian, African, or whatever. Many have intermarried with whites and their progeny could claim affinity with either of their ancestral cultures and races. Is Obama American? What would his mother say?

    It is time for uncontrolled immigration into this country to stop. However, there is no way to make the US racially homogeneous like Japan anymore. Where would you send a 2nd generation Chinese individual, whether or not one of their parents was white? To China, where they would be culturally alien and considered a foreigner? Think again. Why would China take someone who was born in the US?

    We are where we are. We should stop immigration until we are economically prosperous enough to allow it again - and only because we need to. But let's stop talking about making the US homogeneously white again. That ship has sailed.

  81. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'd say the (culturally) homogeneous nations are actually the least pleasant. Plain boring, usually, especially the northern ones. But that's a matter of taste, I suppose.

    and cold.

    Read More
  82. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jacques sheete

    It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

     

    Couldn’t much the same be said about the Wall Street? Big banks and other corporations?

    In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith.
     

    Too bad that same “Christian” country forgot about the 4th commandment. Too bad it destroyed the guys who stood up to the godless Bolshies and gratuitously nuked people who had already lost the war before Pearl Harbor even happened in a totally unnecessary war. Didn't you write a book about it sir, or was the only unnecessary part fighting the Germans?

    Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?
     
    This country has never lived up to its professed ideals and it keeps drifting further away from them. So who cares if this huge, bureaucratic, aggressive, welfare-warfare indebted behemoth disintegrates? Such a hideous monstrosity is long past its expiration date. I, for one, have long been tired of paying for it and the McCains and Clintons and Obombas of the world. I don't think Trump is the Messiah either.

    As far as the wall is concerned, why build it? It won’t keep our troops and drones in…

    what’s so bad about USA breaking into smaller parts?
    USA is too big, too diverse to be centrally governed.

    I could get used to the idea of separate regions for different ethnic groups. In a very loose federation, possibly.

    Californians are calling for a ‘Calexit’ from the US — here’s how a secession could work

    http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-explainer-california-plans-to-secede-2016-11

    Go on and go

    Texas too

    and New York City can be its own state.

    All three have to pay a land tax to the Continental Governing Authority and they don’t get protected by the CGA’s defense apparatus — which will be hugely diminished.

    All patents stay in CGA.

    Visas required to cross borders.

    hmm — should walls be built along California’s borders to keep them out of the CGA?

    Read More
  83. @Veritatis
    What a good article, and what a fascinating comments section. If I remember my terms correctly:
    1) Nation: a group of people who SEE THEMSELVES as belonging to the same group. Usually sharing things like: language, or religion, race, culture, territory. Not always sharing all such things.
    2) State: a political entity in control of a territory, with a stable population, defined borders. Nowadays we include monopoly of violence and ability to conduct foreign relations.
    3) Nation-state: the correct mix of the above.
    4) Empire: a political entity in control of various nations, or nation-states.

    Thus, when Buchanan states the U.S. in 1960 was a Western Christian nation, it seems to me he is very clear in his terms, and correct in his argument, even if the Christian part was wobbling.

    It is easier to organize a society when members see each other as part of the same group, or "community". With a common understanding of what, exactly, constitutes the common good. Then you can share, and clearly articulate, common goals. Recognize common threats also.

    If the U.S. were only to accept high IQ migration, that might take care of the Western part of "nation", but that might not be enough to ensure all (now high IQ) Americans could live together harmoniously. Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened. So what can, in the case of the U.S., substitute for the Christian part of "nation"?

    But Trump is going to go ahead with the wall. What does that say to the world? To answer Buchanan, it says how the most powerful fellow on earth sees the world: as a competition for scarce resources. This is a fundamental shift from the "narrative" both in academic and government circles, where "win-win" schemes were mouthed, and attempted, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Trump means to do well by the average American, but to outsiders his international realism is aggressive. I believe other countries will naturally respond by becoming more "nationalists". Not a Cold War, but the open search for a balance of power will become normal in the international sphere.


    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there's a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.

    Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened.

    It wasn’t the German Jews who were the problem, it was explosive reproduction rates of impoverished Jews, and mass migration of Russian and Polish Jews, and Bolsheviks to Germany.
    see http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    E European Jews were filthy — German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine; so did Jabotinsky himself. https://archive.org/stream/rebelandstatesma006978mbp/rebelandstatesma006978mbp_djvu.txt

    According to Rabbi Henry Abramson, 40% of Polish / Lithuanian Jews were illiterate. Many were lazy — they called them some Yiddish word for “live on air;” no one knew what work they did or how they survived, possibly by stealing or black market.

    THESE are the Jews the NS objected to. German Jews did not have much use for them either. Same for American Jews — they were a PITA and an embarrassment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    E European Jews were filthy — German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine
     
    I have to take issue with this SC. I don't believe that Germans ever hated Jews for being filthy. They may have been, but that, I don't believe was ever really the bone of contention. Rather is was what the Big Jews had done and were doing to Germany. The betrayal during and at the end of the first world war. That was a biggie SC. The trick to get them to lay down their arms, so that the Allies could starve Germany into signing over the German people as slaves to the Allies. How the Jews had brought America into the war on England's behalf, SC. That was what they were angry about. And how, (as you mention the Jewish Bolsheviks in Germany) were trying to condemn Germany to a fate worse than death under Bolshevism.

    Those were the reasons the German people were exasperated with the Jews- the very same Jews that they had been so hospitable and kind to, and invited into Germany as they were fleeing Russia (and Poland and Ukraine and Lithuania) for their very lives.

    It was because Germany was ultimately betrayed and had their generosity repaid with treachery and saw Germany turned into a giant Jewish brothel, with German children for sale under the Weimar regime. As the Jews went into Germany after the Versailles Treaty, as she was prostrate, having been betrayed by everyone, and bought up her institutions for a fraction of their value, and then lorded it over the German people with arrogance and contempt for the veterans who had been so betrayed during and after WWI.

    Not because the Jews with filthy. But because they brought down and humiliated one of the greatest tribes of Europe with sheer treachery, that they're still reeling from today.
  84. Dube says:
    @Chris Mallory

    When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.
     
    None of these groups became "Americans". They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants. All of these groups were harmful to the nation our Founders left to their posterity.

    Ellis Island should be a place of mourning, it was the open sore that allowed hordes of invaders into the body of America.

    ” They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants.” Chris, you are unrealistic if you think that anyone buys your assessment.

    Read More
  85. @moi
    I've been saying the same thing for some time--go after the employers who hire illegals. It's a quicker, cheaper, and more intelligent solution.

    Build the wall AND target employer of illegal aliens with crippling fines and serious felony jail time. End birthright citizenship and family reunification chain migration. We can and must employ all these measures if we are serious about the survival of our people, economy, language, and culture.

    And, as Trump proposed in his campaign book, tax remittances to foreign countries to pay for the wall.

    Read More
  86. @Duglarri
    Mr. Buchanan runs through the question of nationality, and citizenship, and arrives at a very fundamental question: can a brown person be an American?

    Can a brown person adopt Americanism, love football, eat apple pie, believe in freedom, serve in the U.S. Army, and be an American? Were the great traditions of the American state the result of a system of thought, one that can be learned, or are they the result of skin color?

    Is the great American experiment for all people, or just for Brits and Germans? Can others join?

    Sadly, Mr. Buchanan answers: no. Only whites need apply.

    Can we all agree that this is racist?

    You’re not even making sense. Now all white people are British and German?

    Luckily for the USA, we have benefited culturally, economically, genetically, and militarily by having tens of millions of citizens who are also descended from the many, many other white European/near-European nations, e.g. France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Russia, Greece, etc. The melting pot, in time, worked very well and made us stronger when it was these ethnicities and cultures we were absorbing and assimilating.

    Does this mean we need or would be wise, on balance, to let in more Africans, Muslims, Chinese? Hell no.

    By the way, are you also offended and righteously indignant about the Japanese keeping their country Japanese? Or is it bad only when white people try to keep their countries white European in majority population and character?

    Can you admit that you think racial identity and unity are bad only for white people but okay for others?

    Also, nobody here contends that mere skin color is what matters for our culture. Race genetically determines or influences a host of traits and potentials that go far beyond skin color, and you know that. Straw man much?

    Read More
  87. @Duglarri
    Hi Rurik,

    "Homogeneous nations are the most pleasant"- I would point out the example of Switzerland, a country with four official languages. And that New Zealand may appear to be lily-white, but is not; it has a major Maori population that is skilfully integrated.

    And the international rankings commonly place Canada at or near the top of countries on the scale of "pleasantness", in some aspects even above the Nordic countries.

    As for homogeneity- you achieve that when you don't judge a man by the color of his skin; you judge him by whether he joins us in believing in the things we do. That you should be nice to dogs, say sorry a lot, and watch hockey.

    Come up and see how it's all working some time.

    Are you really comparing the extremely closely genetically and culturally related white European peoples who make up traditional Switzerland — Germans, French, and Italians, with an insignificant smattering of Romansch who make up one percent of the population — with the vastly different races and cultures that our elites are cramming into the USA and other western lands in recent years? Really?

    I have long been a canadaphile, not to mention a big hockey fan. But Canada too isn’t what it used to be and is changing largely for the worse (ok, except for the wide range of ethnic restaurants, which I love there or here ;)

    I lived in Vancouver area (Richmond) for a couple years. While it was simply beautiful physically, I found quite many of the people, especially the Chinese and the lefty wiseass whites, to be markedly UNpleasant and passive aggressive, unfriendly, or rude. (Perhaps ironically, the devoutly Christian Indian and Filipino people I mostly hung out with were pretty good on the whole, even if I ideally wouldn’t have admitted so damn many of them and their coethnics.)

    Read More
  88. @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'd say the (culturally) homogeneous nations are actually the least pleasant. Plain boring, usually, especially the northern ones. But that's a matter of taste, I suppose.

    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of “diversity” that was still compatible with social cohesion, affection, loyalty, and high levels of trust, productivity, and compassion. We should have stopped there. It wasn’t boring at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of “diversity”...
     
    That was never the case. What you're talking about (social cohesion) is not a state of things, but a dialectical process. And it's not about 'races' and religions, but about politics and economics.

    The Union and the Confederate States (very similar cultures) fought each other, nearly a million people died. Economics. Then later shops had signs like 'no dogs or Irish', all Italians were considered criminals and anarchists. Now these groups are fully assimilated and accepted; new groups (educated immigrants from Asia) are being rapidly integrated. Imo, the division is between the middle class and the underclass, not between races/religions.
  89. @NoseytheDuke
    At the extremities both Left and Right become almost identical.

    At the extremities both Left and Right become almost identical.

    In the US, the American right wing is pro-constitution, not pro-fascism.

    The US constitution empowers the people and their local governments versus enabling an all-powerful central government.

    Fascism requires an all-powerful central government to exist, the opposite of what is authorized by the US constitution.

    Socialism is possible under the US constitution, but it is only constitutional at the local level of government.

    The American left in the US is genuinely totalitarian and fascist, and as such must necessarily erect straw man narratives about the American right to demonize pro-constitution people.

    Read More
  90. @RadicalCenter
    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of "diversity" that was still compatible with social cohesion, affection, loyalty, and high levels of trust, productivity, and compassion. We should have stopped there. It wasn't boring at all.

    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of “diversity”…

    That was never the case. What you’re talking about (social cohesion) is not a state of things, but a dialectical process. And it’s not about ‘races’ and religions, but about politics and economics.

    The Union and the Confederate States (very similar cultures) fought each other, nearly a million people died. Economics. Then later shops had signs like ‘no dogs or Irish’, all Italians were considered criminals and anarchists. Now these groups are fully assimilated and accepted; new groups (educated immigrants from Asia) are being rapidly integrated. Imo, the division is between the middle class and the underclass, not between races/religions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    What you are saying is wrong and probably not unbiased.

    First you conveniently overlook that the Union and Confederacy fought BECAUSE of black slavery. Had there been no Africans there would not have been a civil war.

    Also your "no dogs and Irish" PREDATE the period he is referring to. Once assimilationist forces got people past that it didn't happen anymore and it is this period (say about 1960) that he is referring to.
  91. @anon
    "It's is the second and later generations that ghettoizes."

    BUT there would be NO 'second and later' generations, without the first one!

    "This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness".

    It could ALSO be solved, eliminated altogether, by just not having immigration in the first place! Japan is an example of this.

    BUT there would be NO ‘second and later’ generations, without the first one!

    While true, it is moot. There have been many generations of non-whites in this country that are as American as the rest of us, whether the original immigrants were Chinese, Indian, African, or whatever. Many have intermarried with whites and their progeny could claim affinity with either of their ancestral cultures and races. Is Obama American? What would his mother say?

    It is time for uncontrolled immigration into this country to stop. However, there is no way to make the US racially homogeneous like Japan anymore. Where would you send a 2nd generation Chinese individual, whether or not one of their parents was white? To China, where they would be culturally alien and considered a foreigner? Think again. Why would China take someone who was born in the US?

    We are where we are. We should stop immigration until we are economically prosperous enough to allow it again – and only because we need to. But let’s stop talking about making the US homogeneously white again. That ship has sailed.

    Read More
  92. KenH says:
    @Numinous

    Conquest and colonization is not unique to white Europeans.
     
    I never said it was. To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.) From the perspective of the destination countries, immigration could simply be regarded as lending a helping hand to poor countries and giving them a shot at prospering. This is a vastly superior alternative to foreign aid, which is often worse than useless.

    But have Muslims ever apologized for the invasion and conquest of Spain, their sack of Constantinople or their repeated attempts at the conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Turks?
     
    They ought to, and the Turks have no moral standing to question or guilt-trip Western Europeans. My sympathies are entirely with the victims of Turkish depredations. I was quite pro-Serb during the recent Balkan wars. I am pro-Greek Cypriots, etc.

    Japan and Israel are also facing demographic decline but they aren’t letting in millions of Arab Muslims and black Africans. Europe should reject the culture of death
     
    Truth be told, when I talk favorably of immigration, I'm not referring to the European continent, which has long-settled homogeneous "tribes" and high population densities (so do Japan and Israel.) I was talking about the various settler countries, like the US, which have a lot more resources per person and can afford a lot more in-migration. You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?


    Did you write this with a straight face? So no-go zones for native white Europeans, periodic riots and terrorist attacks, sexual assaults of white European women and building mosques equate to “subjecting themselves to the rules and customs of the Europeans?
     
    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts' customs. It's the second and later generations that ghettoizes. This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness. This is a battle that Europeans have to fight with other Europeans, not with foreigners and immigrants.

    To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.

    Good to hear you are not a leftie. But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They’re taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries. As the saying goes, how come there is an American dream but no Mexican dream, or Indian dream, or Pakistani dream, or African dream? It’s because America has a white majority, but the larger question leads back to the racial and genetic qualities of differing peoples and the type of societies they create.

    You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process. There were no free lunches when the white settlers arrived, only hardship, conflict and death. Your plea to “give us a shot at doing that now” is not something the West can grant you since it’s not the 17th century anymore and there isn’t any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.

    People in Asia should resort to limiting their birthrates and fixing their own nations, not migrating en masse to America and Canada where in time you’ll just replicate the conditions that caused you to flee in the first place.

    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts’ customs. It’s the second and later generations that ghettoizes.

    Perhaps when they are a tiny minority of perhaps less than 5%. But as their numbers grow they become more bellicose and antagonistic toward’s the host people and their customs. They never truly assimilate because the host white culture is alien to them.

    This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness.

    If the white/Western host nations regained pride in their race, ethnicity and cultures then they wouldn’t be meekly allowing third worlders into their societies to begin with. Assimilation generally doesn’t work. With continued mass migration at some point America, the U.K. and Europe will stop being what they were (first world, majority white nations) and start being an agglomeration of third world races, religions and cultures which will bring dysfunction and conflict. No thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They’re taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries.
     
    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn't they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process.
     
    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding "savages" with guns and artillery.

    (Now, I wouldn't approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you'll see settlements spring up in no time. They won't ask for any help from you.)

    Your plea to “give us a shot at doing that now” is not something the West can grant you since it’s not the 17th century anymore and there isn’t any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.
     
    First, I'm not talking about the "West". I'm talking about the former settler colonies. I couldn't care less if Norway or Germany or Portugal closed their borders. I'm talking about North America and Australasia.
    Second, it's all relative. The former settler colonies are very lightly populated compared to the Old World (I'm talking Europe and Asia). They can easily absorb many more, and they are doing so. Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the "average America", they do not. Which is why you won't succeed in stopping people from immigrating unless something seriously catastrophic happens. Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don't treat their current inhabitants as "violent savages" to be exterminated.
  93. Rurik says:
    @Veritatis
    What a good article, and what a fascinating comments section. If I remember my terms correctly:
    1) Nation: a group of people who SEE THEMSELVES as belonging to the same group. Usually sharing things like: language, or religion, race, culture, territory. Not always sharing all such things.
    2) State: a political entity in control of a territory, with a stable population, defined borders. Nowadays we include monopoly of violence and ability to conduct foreign relations.
    3) Nation-state: the correct mix of the above.
    4) Empire: a political entity in control of various nations, or nation-states.

    Thus, when Buchanan states the U.S. in 1960 was a Western Christian nation, it seems to me he is very clear in his terms, and correct in his argument, even if the Christian part was wobbling.

    It is easier to organize a society when members see each other as part of the same group, or "community". With a common understanding of what, exactly, constitutes the common good. Then you can share, and clearly articulate, common goals. Recognize common threats also.

    If the U.S. were only to accept high IQ migration, that might take care of the Western part of "nation", but that might not be enough to ensure all (now high IQ) Americans could live together harmoniously. Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened. So what can, in the case of the U.S., substitute for the Christian part of "nation"?

    But Trump is going to go ahead with the wall. What does that say to the world? To answer Buchanan, it says how the most powerful fellow on earth sees the world: as a competition for scarce resources. This is a fundamental shift from the "narrative" both in academic and government circles, where "win-win" schemes were mouthed, and attempted, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Trump means to do well by the average American, but to outsiders his international realism is aggressive. I believe other countries will naturally respond by becoming more "nationalists". Not a Cold War, but the open search for a balance of power will become normal in the international sphere.


    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there's a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.

    Hello Veritatis,

    Great post as usual.

    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there’s a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.

    I’m an amateur student of history Veritatis, and one of my main areas of study is the world wars, and world war II in particular, but as every historian who studies these wars knows, they’re not really two separate wars, but that the second one was a direct consequence of the injustices meted out during and following the first one.

    Anyways, when one studies these epic human atrocities, one is struck by the sheer momentous evil of it all. And by that I mean the incomprehensible suffering, and often for suffering’s sake. And of course the scope, as some 60+ million people were slaughtered, often horribly, in the second war alone. And that doesn’t count all the hundreds of millions of people who died from the murderous barbarity of their own governments- in that bloody and horrific century.

    Knowing all of this, and being fundamentally appalled at the demons that inhabit man’s id, and his capacity for sadistic cruelty, I remember a quiet little prayer I made at the beginning of this century, that the forces of evil might be held at bay, and that I might live to see man evolving beyond those nightmarish images I had in my mind of emaciated bodies in ditches, and scenes from Dresden and Hiroshima and Nanking. That was my little prayer to the universe, or God or providence, or what have you. (I’m not a believer in any organized religion per se, but feel in my soul a great capacity for spirituality, nonetheless)

    So, knowing what I know about human nature, and the horrors of the twentieth century, and how most of those horrors, particularly in Europe and the Middle East were motivated and perpetrated by Zionists, when 9/11 happened, I lost heart.

    I knew this was the act of the Fiend, and that the intention and motivation for 9/11 was that the 21 century also be one of horrors writ large, and human suffering and injustice beyond comprehension. It changed my whole life when 9/11 happened, and I saw the Orwellian mendacity poison the narrative with its devil’s lies 24/7.

    Soon my country was bombing and destroying other people’s countries right and left. The Ministry of Truth was kicking out lies so fast my head spun. We were sacrificing our hard won freedoms for promises of security from the very people who had murdered so many of us on that singularly heinous day. I had very good reason for pessimism, and that might be the understatement of the century.

    So, when a man came to the fore, who seemed to question the merit and wisdom of all these wars, and called the politicians who waged them liars, I suddenly felt a surge of hope, for the first time since I lost it when Obama proved that he too was just another war criminal stooge.

    But it goes far deeper than just repudiating and ending the wars. Because Trump has also talked about auditing the Fed, and this is revolutionary Veritatis! It is my sincere belief, that all of the horrors of the world wars, and the unending strife and suffering in the Middle East, are all due to a small cabal of sinister men having concentrated control over the governments and media of the West, by using the Federal Reserve Bank to loot the wealth of the people and use their own money against them. The Fed is the center of it all. The Eye of Mordor, so to speak, out from which all these wars and strife and evil all emanate. We may manage to end some of these vastly unpopular wars for now, but as long as the Fed remains in control of our economies and wealth and money supply, we will be at the mercy of the men who control the Fed.

    So, if Trump, and others like him, like Putin in Russia, and Le Pen in France, etc.. can manage somehow to wrest control of the West from these dominant men, who have us all under an iron grip of control, and are using our own institutions against us, in order to enslave and destroy us, then he may not be the Second Coming, for sure, but when you consider the words and earnest prayers of the Christ Himself, that man learn to love his neighbors, rather than murder them, and to make peace, rather than wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, and how he turned over the tables of the money changers, and ordered them out of the temple of the Lord, well then for me, the divinity of the man saving the world is simply not an imperative, whether it’s the Christ Himself, or simply a crass and egotistical man who loves more than he hates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dianna
    While we should never put our trust in man, I also pray that our president will fight on the side of goodness and mercy, and let's not forget justice! The Lord's will be done.
    , @Veritatis
    Hello, Rurik! I hadn't seen this post, otherwise would have responded, there is beauty and anguish and... Hope.

    It made me think of Augustine (there, I show my colors!) who, shocked by a barbaric sack of Rome in 410 went on to write City of God. In a nutshell, "perfection is not of this world", but yes, God writes straight in crooked lines. And yes, in the battle between good and evil, we must fight, with eyes open, either as Aragorn, or Frodo or Sam. And look at Gollum. Was Gollum fiendish? Because he was certainly indispensable in defeating Sauron.

    And then, in an individual life, what weighs the most? The circumstances of the world in which we inhabit, the wars, the injustice and suffering and abuse by the powerful, or the everyday stories of love and friendship? How much is the weight of our lot, how much our attitude, the way we chart our course? (I'm thinking of rereading Les Misérables or Tale of Two Cities)

    And in this everyday, can we hope for a "superabundance of generosity" which is God's way of acting?
    "That way of doing things which lavishly produces an entire universe in order to prepare a place on earth for that mysterious being, man. That way of doing things by which, in a final, unheard-of lavishness, he gives himself away in order to save that 'thinking reed' , man, and to bring him to his goal. This ultimate and unheard-of event will always defy the calculating mind of correct thinkers."

    Will we live to see that just as Hamlet-gallant-Prince-of-Denmark, with his search for truth avoided a civil war for his country, so might less-gallant Trump, with serene Pence, calm Mattis and redoubtable Tillerson, chart a different course? Or will Guilderstein and the other fellow win first? We live in interesting times, perfection is not of this world, and Hamlet was a Christ.
    Un abrazo.
  94. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened.
     
    It wasn't the German Jews who were the problem, it was explosive reproduction rates of impoverished Jews, and mass migration of Russian and Polish Jews, and Bolsheviks to Germany.
    see http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    E European Jews were filthy -- German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine; so did Jabotinsky himself. https://archive.org/stream/rebelandstatesma006978mbp/rebelandstatesma006978mbp_djvu.txt

    According to Rabbi Henry Abramson, 40% of Polish / Lithuanian Jews were illiterate. Many were lazy -- they called them some Yiddish word for "live on air;" no one knew what work they did or how they survived, possibly by stealing or black market.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeRpiVQ-9Y

    THESE are the Jews the NS objected to. German Jews did not have much use for them either. Same for American Jews -- they were a PITA and an embarrassment.

    E European Jews were filthy — German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine

    I have to take issue with this SC. I don’t believe that Germans ever hated Jews for being filthy. They may have been, but that, I don’t believe was ever really the bone of contention. Rather is was what the Big Jews had done and were doing to Germany. The betrayal during and at the end of the first world war. That was a biggie SC. The trick to get them to lay down their arms, so that the Allies could starve Germany into signing over the German people as slaves to the Allies. How the Jews had brought America into the war on England’s behalf, SC. That was what they were angry about. And how, (as you mention the Jewish Bolsheviks in Germany) were trying to condemn Germany to a fate worse than death under Bolshevism.

    Those were the reasons the German people were exasperated with the Jews- the very same Jews that they had been so hospitable and kind to, and invited into Germany as they were fleeing Russia (and Poland and Ukraine and Lithuania) for their very lives.

    It was because Germany was ultimately betrayed and had their generosity repaid with treachery and saw Germany turned into a giant Jewish brothel, with German children for sale under the Weimar regime. As the Jews went into Germany after the Versailles Treaty, as she was prostrate, having been betrayed by everyone, and bought up her institutions for a fraction of their value, and then lorded it over the German people with arrogance and contempt for the veterans who had been so betrayed during and after WWI.

    Not because the Jews with filthy. But because they brought down and humiliated one of the greatest tribes of Europe with sheer treachery, that they’re still reeling from today.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Rurik,
    I agree with most of what you wrote, and especially endorse your eloquent response to Veritatis at #93.

    However, perhaps I failed to properly articulate the point I was trying to make: I did not intend the emphasis to be on filthiness, but on what I think is a fact, that the animus of Germans was directed toward East European Jews more than toward 'their own' German Jews.

    Hans Luther claimed this to be the case in statements reported by Jewish Telegraph Agency in 1935.

    I also wished to enter into the information base the fact that the German people were dealing with a staggering number of immigrants whose values and behaviors were antithetical to their own -- sound familiar?

    Nevertheless, "filthiness" was a factor and does matter. Vladimir Jabotinsky was as repulsed by the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Galicia as Hitler was of the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Vienna. Both of these groups of Jewish immigrants were different from the Jews that Jabotinsky, and Hitler, had grown up among, and had been taught and inclined to respect.

    It's worth noting that the Jews who were responsible for the most significant of the betrayals that the Germans suffered -- the starvation, the loss of WWI, the betrayal at Versailles -- were mostly non-German Jews: Weizmann secured the Balfour declaration; he was from Belorussia. Jabotinsky was from Odessa. Rabbi Stephen Wise, perhaps the most mendacious and zealous of the zionists, was of Hungarian origins. On the other hand, Max Warburg, a German Jew who participated in Versailles negotiations -- to be sure, not on behalf of Germans but of his own financial interests-- nevertheless argued that "the Germans are a virile people and should not be disrespected."

    So the core of my argument is that it was primarily "interloper Jews" from Eastern Europe, who were more concerned with fulfilling their zionist fantasy than with respecting the German state and people among whom they dwelt and to whose shelter they flocked as a way-station to their ultimate goal, zionist Palestine; and not the "old line" German Jews who had lived among Germans for centuries, that were the target of German ire and whom Germans sought to expel -- even as it was the zionist agenda that those Jews should use Germany only as a temporary transit-stop.

    Back to the "filth" part: although it is secondary, it is a significant point: in a Charlie Chaplin film produced in 1939, a well-turned out Jewish man tells his family, "they are gassing us," and he gestures as if he is pumping a bug-spray. From fictions like these the holocaust-gas chamber narrative was born. No serious scholar, Jewish or not, claims that, in 1939, Jews were being gassed, i.e. killed in gas chambers.

    Based on a comment made by Dr. David Engel in a lecture on the holocaust, that "in addition to plans to relocate Jews to Madagascar, there were also plans to relocate Jews to Poland," I speculate that NS leadership did collaborate with "big" Jews, whether zionist or not, I can't say, to move "surplus Jews" out of Germany to a Jewish settlement in Poland. In that transit, and because it was a fact known to German Jews, that E. European were not well acquainted with sound hygienic practices,* Germans took special care to protect against diseases that might be exacerbated by poor hygiene. (Engel also observed that after the experience of the difficulties of that huge population bubble among Jews, "steps were taken to reduce the size of the population." Fascinating comment.)

    This little bit of detail plays directly into the use of Xyklon B by Germans to ensure that typhus did not infest the Jewish people that Germans were, in fact, attempting to shelter, in collaboration with "Big" Jews.

    While we're at it: it is also a known fact that some Jews deliberately spread disease in camps in acts of sabotage, causing the deaths of many, perhaps thousands, of their co-religionists.

    BUT in general, I agree that other Jewish acts of betrayal of the German people were the basis for legitimate German anger.

    ----

    * a fact that was embarrassing to German Jews in the USA who were financing these activities, and had also been a matter of major concern to Arthur Ruppin as he developed infrastructure and institutions for the settlement of Jews in Palestine: Ruppin insisted that Jews observe habits of hygiene, or be forced to return to the places they came from.
  95. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    When the USA had evolved into a combination of dozens of white European / near-European ethnies, but not yet been foolish enough to admit many people of less compatible races and religions, it was approaching the right blend of “diversity”...
     
    That was never the case. What you're talking about (social cohesion) is not a state of things, but a dialectical process. And it's not about 'races' and religions, but about politics and economics.

    The Union and the Confederate States (very similar cultures) fought each other, nearly a million people died. Economics. Then later shops had signs like 'no dogs or Irish', all Italians were considered criminals and anarchists. Now these groups are fully assimilated and accepted; new groups (educated immigrants from Asia) are being rapidly integrated. Imo, the division is between the middle class and the underclass, not between races/religions.

    What you are saying is wrong and probably not unbiased.

    First you conveniently overlook that the Union and Confederacy fought BECAUSE of black slavery. Had there been no Africans there would not have been a civil war.

    Also your “no dogs and Irish” PREDATE the period he is referring to. Once assimilationist forces got people past that it didn’t happen anymore and it is this period (say about 1960) that he is referring to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    The war wasn't about slavery, at least not directly. First, the secession was about economics, and then the war was about the secession.

    and it is this period (say about 1960) that he is referring to
     
    I know, but the 1960s wasn't exactly the model period of peace and harmony either. As, I'm sure, we're all well aware. What I was trying to demonstrate is that the tensions (that sometimes erupt into a confrontation) are not between 'races', but between classes, the middle class vs the underclass. When most of the Irish belonged to the underclass, they were devils, and now, when most of them are middle class, they're all soft and fluffy. And the underclass is organic part of a capitalist system.
  96. @Chris Mallory

    When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.
     
    None of these groups became "Americans". They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants. All of these groups were harmful to the nation our Founders left to their posterity.

    Ellis Island should be a place of mourning, it was the open sore that allowed hordes of invaders into the body of America.

    Says the guy with the French Norman surname. Who is a limey frog pipsqueak like you to tell me, that my german relatives have been here since the 17th century and built this country that i have the right to be here or not. Go away loser

    Read More
  97. Hibernian says:
    @Chris Mallory

    When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.
     
    None of these groups became "Americans". They and their descendants are nothing but dirty immigrants. All of these groups were harmful to the nation our Founders left to their posterity.

    Ellis Island should be a place of mourning, it was the open sore that allowed hordes of invaders into the body of America.

    And what about your own family tree Mr. Mallory? I’m sure everyone in it got here before 1840.

    Read More
  98. @anon
    What you are saying is wrong and probably not unbiased.

    First you conveniently overlook that the Union and Confederacy fought BECAUSE of black slavery. Had there been no Africans there would not have been a civil war.

    Also your "no dogs and Irish" PREDATE the period he is referring to. Once assimilationist forces got people past that it didn't happen anymore and it is this period (say about 1960) that he is referring to.

    The war wasn’t about slavery, at least not directly. First, the secession was about economics, and then the war was about the secession.

    and it is this period (say about 1960) that he is referring to

    I know, but the 1960s wasn’t exactly the model period of peace and harmony either. As, I’m sure, we’re all well aware. What I was trying to demonstrate is that the tensions (that sometimes erupt into a confrontation) are not between ‘races’, but between classes, the middle class vs the underclass. When most of the Irish belonged to the underclass, they were devils, and now, when most of them are middle class, they’re all soft and fluffy. And the underclass is organic part of a capitalist system.

    Read More
  99. @Veritatis
    What a good article, and what a fascinating comments section. If I remember my terms correctly:
    1) Nation: a group of people who SEE THEMSELVES as belonging to the same group. Usually sharing things like: language, or religion, race, culture, territory. Not always sharing all such things.
    2) State: a political entity in control of a territory, with a stable population, defined borders. Nowadays we include monopoly of violence and ability to conduct foreign relations.
    3) Nation-state: the correct mix of the above.
    4) Empire: a political entity in control of various nations, or nation-states.

    Thus, when Buchanan states the U.S. in 1960 was a Western Christian nation, it seems to me he is very clear in his terms, and correct in his argument, even if the Christian part was wobbling.

    It is easier to organize a society when members see each other as part of the same group, or "community". With a common understanding of what, exactly, constitutes the common good. Then you can share, and clearly articulate, common goals. Recognize common threats also.

    If the U.S. were only to accept high IQ migration, that might take care of the Western part of "nation", but that might not be enough to ensure all (now high IQ) Americans could live together harmoniously. Germany was host to the two highest IQ groups o(of available data) Germans and German Jews and look what happened. So what can, in the case of the U.S., substitute for the Christian part of "nation"?

    But Trump is going to go ahead with the wall. What does that say to the world? To answer Buchanan, it says how the most powerful fellow on earth sees the world: as a competition for scarce resources. This is a fundamental shift from the "narrative" both in academic and government circles, where "win-win" schemes were mouthed, and attempted, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Trump means to do well by the average American, but to outsiders his international realism is aggressive. I believe other countries will naturally respond by becoming more "nationalists". Not a Cold War, but the open search for a balance of power will become normal in the international sphere.


    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there's a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.

    re the IQ thing — there were plenty of very high IQ people, women and men, making fools of themselves in DC on Jan 21.

    IQ is not the end-all and be-all; common sense, psychological/emotional maturity, and aesthetic and literary development require a renaissance if US nationalism is to regain its soul. imo those spiritual, characterological elements are far more difficult to communicate and develop than STEM.

    Read More
  100. @Rurik

    E European Jews were filthy — German Jews concede this, so did the Jewish settlement authorities in Palestine
     
    I have to take issue with this SC. I don't believe that Germans ever hated Jews for being filthy. They may have been, but that, I don't believe was ever really the bone of contention. Rather is was what the Big Jews had done and were doing to Germany. The betrayal during and at the end of the first world war. That was a biggie SC. The trick to get them to lay down their arms, so that the Allies could starve Germany into signing over the German people as slaves to the Allies. How the Jews had brought America into the war on England's behalf, SC. That was what they were angry about. And how, (as you mention the Jewish Bolsheviks in Germany) were trying to condemn Germany to a fate worse than death under Bolshevism.

    Those were the reasons the German people were exasperated with the Jews- the very same Jews that they had been so hospitable and kind to, and invited into Germany as they were fleeing Russia (and Poland and Ukraine and Lithuania) for their very lives.

    It was because Germany was ultimately betrayed and had their generosity repaid with treachery and saw Germany turned into a giant Jewish brothel, with German children for sale under the Weimar regime. As the Jews went into Germany after the Versailles Treaty, as she was prostrate, having been betrayed by everyone, and bought up her institutions for a fraction of their value, and then lorded it over the German people with arrogance and contempt for the veterans who had been so betrayed during and after WWI.

    Not because the Jews with filthy. But because they brought down and humiliated one of the greatest tribes of Europe with sheer treachery, that they're still reeling from today.

    Rurik,
    I agree with most of what you wrote, and especially endorse your eloquent response to Veritatis at #93.

    However, perhaps I failed to properly articulate the point I was trying to make: I did not intend the emphasis to be on filthiness, but on what I think is a fact, that the animus of Germans was directed toward East European Jews more than toward ‘their own’ German Jews.

    Hans Luther claimed this to be the case in statements reported by Jewish Telegraph Agency in 1935.

    I also wished to enter into the information base the fact that the German people were dealing with a staggering number of immigrants whose values and behaviors were antithetical to their own — sound familiar?

    Nevertheless, “filthiness” was a factor and does matter. Vladimir Jabotinsky was as repulsed by the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Galicia as Hitler was of the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Vienna. Both of these groups of Jewish immigrants were different from the Jews that Jabotinsky, and Hitler, had grown up among, and had been taught and inclined to respect.

    It’s worth noting that the Jews who were responsible for the most significant of the betrayals that the Germans suffered — the starvation, the loss of WWI, the betrayal at Versailles — were mostly non-German Jews: Weizmann secured the Balfour declaration; he was from Belorussia. Jabotinsky was from Odessa. Rabbi Stephen Wise, perhaps the most mendacious and zealous of the zionists, was of Hungarian origins. On the other hand, Max Warburg, a German Jew who participated in Versailles negotiations — to be sure, not on behalf of Germans but of his own financial interests– nevertheless argued that “the Germans are a virile people and should not be disrespected.”

    So the core of my argument is that it was primarily “interloper Jews” from Eastern Europe, who were more concerned with fulfilling their zionist fantasy than with respecting the German state and people among whom they dwelt and to whose shelter they flocked as a way-station to their ultimate goal, zionist Palestine; and not the “old line” German Jews who had lived among Germans for centuries, that were the target of German ire and whom Germans sought to expel — even as it was the zionist agenda that those Jews should use Germany only as a temporary transit-stop.

    Back to the “filth” part: although it is secondary, it is a significant point: in a Charlie Chaplin film produced in 1939, a well-turned out Jewish man tells his family, “they are gassing us,” and he gestures as if he is pumping a bug-spray. From fictions like these the holocaust-gas chamber narrative was born. No serious scholar, Jewish or not, claims that, in 1939, Jews were being gassed, i.e. killed in gas chambers.

    Based on a comment made by Dr. David Engel in a lecture on the holocaust, that “in addition to plans to relocate Jews to Madagascar, there were also plans to relocate Jews to Poland,” I speculate that NS leadership did collaborate with “big” Jews, whether zionist or not, I can’t say, to move “surplus Jews” out of Germany to a Jewish settlement in Poland. In that transit, and because it was a fact known to German Jews, that E. European were not well acquainted with sound hygienic practices,* Germans took special care to protect against diseases that might be exacerbated by poor hygiene. (Engel also observed that after the experience of the difficulties of that huge population bubble among Jews, “steps were taken to reduce the size of the population.” Fascinating comment.)

    This little bit of detail plays directly into the use of Xyklon B by Germans to ensure that typhus did not infest the Jewish people that Germans were, in fact, attempting to shelter, in collaboration with “Big” Jews.

    While we’re at it: it is also a known fact that some Jews deliberately spread disease in camps in acts of sabotage, causing the deaths of many, perhaps thousands, of their co-religionists.

    BUT in general, I agree that other Jewish acts of betrayal of the German people were the basis for legitimate German anger.

    —-

    * a fact that was embarrassing to German Jews in the USA who were financing these activities, and had also been a matter of major concern to Arthur Ruppin as he developed infrastructure and institutions for the settlement of Jews in Palestine: Ruppin insisted that Jews observe habits of hygiene, or be forced to return to the places they came from.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thanks SC. It's true, I suspect that writing can be therapeutic. and also I find that certain people can inspire in certain ways. I suspect that's one of the benefits of lurking around a comment section like this, is you're able to enjoy and participate in mutually edifying conversations.

    the animus of Germans was directed toward East European Jews more than toward ‘their own’ German Jews.
     
    I'm sure this was the case. Didn't thousands, perhaps more, German Jews wear the uniform of the Wehrmacht? I think there were a lot of officers too. And of course I'm aware of the Jewish fiends of Hungary, like Bela Kun. And of course the genocidal monsters like Kaganovich in the East. From what I've glimmered, the hatred of the chosen was far worse in places like Poland than in Germany or Austria, or the farther you went West. But then look at what the Jewish NKVD did in places like Katyn, or Ukraine, once they came to power?

    I confess that when I read accounts of their incomprehensible hatred unleashed, it makes me feel sympathy for the Pals, knowing the kind of hatred and cruelty these people are singularly capable of.

    As for the 'filth', yes I remember reading some things that Gen Patton had said about it. I guess it was rather beyond the Pale. One wonders... how many men like Patton or Pat Tillman started out gung-ho to slay the dragons of their two minute hate, only to realize they were duped? How many of such men and women were thus treated to the Patton/Tillman treatment?

    “they are gassing us,” and he gestures as if he is pumping a bug-spray.
     
    and yes, the silly stories about homicidal gas chambers must surely have came about from the typhus delousing

    here an American soldier delousing a woman

    http://www.whale.to/b/us-army_germany_1944-46_p23.jpg

    so it wouldn't have been too much of a leap for them to make these claims.

    what I suspect, is that in Germany around that time, there must have been some general animosity towards "the Jews" for the betrayal at the end of WWI, by the "Big Jews" in London and NY. And the knowledge that it was Jews who had fomented communism in Russia, and murdered the Romanovs, and set about genociding the 'best of the Gentiles in Ukraine, and had brought with them the cultural rot of the Weimar regime. So as Hitler tried to prevent another world war, but seeing that is was being forced by "the (Big) Jews in London and NY on the world, the German people (including a lot of Jews), became exasperated, and that let to kristallnacht, and the general will to see many Jews rounded up and put into concentration camps, much like Americans did to Japanese Americans.

    That's sort of how I see it.
  101. @alexander
    Dear Mr. Buchanan,

    Do any of us really believe that the "overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East" is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Is it so hard for us to see the refugee crisis for what it is.....".blood splatter" from the brutal dismemberment and carnage of the numerous countries we have pulverized ,shattered and decimated over the last decade and a half ?

    All countries that share the singular virtue of never having attacked us, on 9-11.

    Is not the hemorrhaging of refugees from these eviscerated nations, now numbering in the tens of millions, wholly synonymous with the tens of trillions in tax payer dollars, hemorrhaged from our nations balance sheet to prosecute these foolish, criminal and reckless wars ?

    And what of our Neocon war masters, whom we trusted to guide our ship of state through the uncharted "emergencies" at the dawn of this century, and who chose to "lie" us into war, are they not the ones truly responsible for this "titanic" mess ?

    If we must build a wall, Mr Buchanan, then let us use THEIR assets to fund and erect it.....NOT the taxpayers......Moreover, since it was their odious deceits which brought us to this point , perhaps we should consider burying their heads and bones in the concrete , when we do.

    Then, perhaps, our "great wall" will serve as a fitting monument to all the criminals within it, as equally as it serves to protect us, from all the criminals beyond it.

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?

    Uh me … and just about anyone else who actually looks at the facts.

    Sure there’s been local disruption by the Iraq war, the Syrian civil war that are extra motivation for people to leave those places. But Arab\Muslim lands are far from “virtually uninhabitable”. In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving. But what they don’t offer is European\American\Western levels of prosperity, freedom or welfare states.

    These young men–and the European refugee influx is overwhelmingly young men–are looking to have an adventure, make a buck in more prosperous lands and try to bang looser white women. They are off to milk the white goose. Which seems like a much easier job than “owning” their own nations: picking a side and fighting to make their own nation have better constitutional government, rule of law and hopefully down the road, prosperity.

    Africa, of course … even more so. There’s been even less intervention there. The wars are their own tribal and big man fights. The population growth has been even more insane and unlike the Arab\Muslims lands, is still going flat out with crazy high fertility. But Africans are low IQ, there’s little prospect of things getting better–Africans being able to make them better–so the young men are trying to get to Europe. Again for adventure, making a buck, banging white girls … milking the white goose.

    Essentially none of this is gated by “splatter”. It’s lower IQ populations with crappier, less law abiding, less prosperous, nations, right next to higher IQ more prosperous nations … who insanely have stopped protecting their borders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving.
     
    I came across an article not long ago (maybe on this site) where Syria's population was only 3 million in the mid 1960's, but exploded to 23 million by the outbreak of the civil war in 2011-2012. This is nearly an eight fold increase.
    , @alexander
    Well, Another Dad,

    From 1960-2000,

    The amount of Muslim "refugees" forced to exodus their own lands and heading to the West was virtually non existent.

    Were Muslim IQ's just so much higher back then...Is that what explains it ?

    from 2002-2017 the United States of America has spent over $10,000,000,000,000.00 of US taxpayer money invading, bombing, and destroying Middle eastern countries that never actually attacked us on 9-11.

    And you, like many others, are totally "shocked" there is a refugee crisis, (oh my goodness how did this happen ?) and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact we have been obliterating all these countries for the last 15 years.......No.....Could not possible be!.......Hey. I know why there are all these "refugees" now....Not because of our stupid ,insanely expensive, endless wars and the enormous damage they have inflicted....no, no....its because of their population explosions and low IQ's....that's it !

    Well.......I suppose We are all entitled to our own opinions, "Another Dad". but I have been around since the 1960's....and I have been watching all this happen.......You are more than welcome to pull the wool over your own eyes if it makes you feel better...just not mine, thank you very much.

  102. KenH says:
    @AnotherDad

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Uh me ... and just about anyone else who actually looks at the facts.

    Sure there's been local disruption by the Iraq war, the Syrian civil war that are extra motivation for people to leave those places. But Arab\Muslim lands are far from "virtually uninhabitable". In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving. But what they don't offer is European\American\Western levels of prosperity, freedom or welfare states.

    These young men--and the European refugee influx is overwhelmingly young men--are looking to have an adventure, make a buck in more prosperous lands and try to bang looser white women. They are off to milk the white goose. Which seems like a much easier job than "owning" their own nations: picking a side and fighting to make their own nation have better constitutional government, rule of law and hopefully down the road, prosperity.

    Africa, of course ... even more so. There's been even less intervention there. The wars are their own tribal and big man fights. The population growth has been even more insane and unlike the Arab\Muslims lands, is still going flat out with crazy high fertility. But Africans are low IQ, there's little prospect of things getting better--Africans being able to make them better--so the young men are trying to get to Europe. Again for adventure, making a buck, banging white girls ... milking the white goose.

    Essentially none of this is gated by "splatter". It's lower IQ populations with crappier, less law abiding, less prosperous, nations, right next to higher IQ more prosperous nations ... who insanely have stopped protecting their borders.

    In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving.

    I came across an article not long ago (maybe on this site) where Syria’s population was only 3 million in the mid 1960′s, but exploded to 23 million by the outbreak of the civil war in 2011-2012. This is nearly an eight fold increase.

    Read More
  103. Numinous says:
    @KenH

    To me, the current wave of immigration is not a punishment for colonialism, but just a natural phenomenon of people seeking to improve their fortunes by migrating. (I mentioned earlier that I am not a leftie, so promoting white guilt or diversity just does not figure among my motivations.
     
    Good to hear you are not a leftie. But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They're taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries. As the saying goes, how come there is an American dream but no Mexican dream, or Indian dream, or Pakistani dream, or African dream? It's because America has a white majority, but the larger question leads back to the racial and genetic qualities of differing peoples and the type of societies they create.

    You Europeans got a shot at moving to different lands and making your fortunes in the recent past, so why not give some of us (people in Asia, for example) a shot at doing that now?

     

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process. There were no free lunches when the white settlers arrived, only hardship, conflict and death. Your plea to "give us a shot at doing that now" is not something the West can grant you since it's not the 17th century anymore and there isn't any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.

    People in Asia should resort to limiting their birthrates and fixing their own nations, not migrating en masse to America and Canada where in time you'll just replicate the conditions that caused you to flee in the first place.


    I believe the immigrants themselves are fairly deferential to their hosts’ customs. It’s the second and later generations that ghettoizes.
     
    Perhaps when they are a tiny minority of perhaps less than 5%. But as their numbers grow they become more bellicose and antagonistic toward's the host people and their customs. They never truly assimilate because the host white culture is alien to them.

    This problem can be solved simply by the host countries regaining pride in their cultures and enforcing assimilation without being hamstrung by political correctness.
     
    If the white/Western host nations regained pride in their race, ethnicity and cultures then they wouldn't be meekly allowing third worlders into their societies to begin with. Assimilation generally doesn't work. With continued mass migration at some point America, the U.K. and Europe will stop being what they were (first world, majority white nations) and start being an agglomeration of third world races, religions and cultures which will bring dysfunction and conflict. No thanks.

    But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They’re taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries.

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process.

    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding “savages” with guns and artillery.

    (Now, I wouldn’t approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)

    Your plea to “give us a shot at doing that now” is not something the West can grant you since it’s not the 17th century anymore and there isn’t any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.

    First, I’m not talking about the “West”. I’m talking about the former settler colonies. I couldn’t care less if Norway or Germany or Portugal closed their borders. I’m talking about North America and Australasia.
    Second, it’s all relative. The former settler colonies are very lightly populated compared to the Old World (I’m talking Europe and Asia). They can easily absorb many more, and they are doing so. Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not. Which is why you won’t succeed in stopping people from immigrating unless something seriously catastrophic happens. Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don’t treat their current inhabitants as “violent savages” to be exterminated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?
     
    ever read Dickens?

    young men (and often women) are adventurous, at least some of them. They want to go to distant shores and explore, see, experience. I'm the same way.

    you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)
     
    bullshit

    if the immigrants who came here were beautiful young men and women, who came with energy and ideas and contributed to the greater benefit of all, then no on in their right mind would be against immigration. But the fact is that the ones that come (not every single one, but the vast majority) are the dregs and the losers. They come for the bennies and EBT cards, not because they love and respect our societies and people. They usually harbor a deep resentment against our societies and people, and this is obvious to anyone with half a brain, including you.

    I’m talking about North America and Australasia.
     
    are you now?

    have your sights set do you?

    They can easily absorb many more
     
    perhaps they can absorb an equal amount of Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus, and we can build our very own Kashmirs right in America's heartland! And maybe even have a little nuclear war! Isn't diversity and multiculturalism great?!

    Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not.
     
    well, if the election of Donald Trump is any indication, you're wrong about that.

    Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don’t treat their current inhabitants as “violent savages” to be exterminated.
     
    ever heard of Omar Mateen?

    Seung-Hui Cho?

    Nidal Malik Hasan was the son of immigrants it's true, but even being born here didn't assuage his murderous hatred for Americans, and his fellow "comrades".

    How many Muslims does India import every year Numinous?

    how many of America's sons and daughters should American parents be willing to see raped or murdered so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits of diversity? Eh?

    Every single nation on the planet, (and that includes India, Australia and the U.S.) should determine their immigration policies based on what's best for the respective citizens of their respective nations. This is a no-brainer my friend, and it's long overdue for the people of the West to realize it. We've been getting colonized by the people of the third world for quite long enough now, and we'd simply like to tell the world politely that now that Trump is in office, we're going to stop destroying other people's nations on behalf of genocidal Zionists, and stop destroying our own by inviting in people who harbor deep resentments against us and do not assimilate to our ways. OK?
    , @KenH

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?
     
    The early settlers were fleeing genuine religious persecution and often suffered disease and starvation upon arrival in the new world. There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing and free smart phones with which to plot terrorist attacks and/or film sexual assualts of native women.

    You are only fleeing a dysfunctional, corrupt nation and simply want a taste of the good life (white life) in the West.


    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding “savages” with guns and artillery.
     
    Well we sure didn't see any Hindus doing it, did we? Early settlers did not have many artillery pieces and had to use semi-accurate muzzle loading long rifles and flintock pistols against marauding Ameridians. They were actually at a disadvantage in battle due to the time it took to reload these weapons. I think you need to crack some books on that period.

    (Now, I wouldn’t approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)
     
    Yeah, right. Immigrants from poor countries can't succeed in or fix their own nations but will arrive in America and Australia and suddenly build thriving, first world settlements in its empty spaces that will be the envy of all. I'm sold.

    Africa has lots of empty space for a Hindustan project. Why not gather a few million of your brethren and head there?


    Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not.
     
    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration. Anti-immigration nationalist parties are on the rise throughout Europe and are on the cusp of victory in France, Austria and now Germany. I can't find any evidence where citizens throughout the West are clamoring for a Hindustan project within their borders.

    You are very delusional.

  104. alexander says:
    @AnotherDad

    Do any of us really believe that the “overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East” is not, in fact, a direct consequence of the catastrophic wars we have visited upon these regions, rendering the lands there, virtually uninhabitable ?
     
    Uh me ... and just about anyone else who actually looks at the facts.

    Sure there's been local disruption by the Iraq war, the Syrian civil war that are extra motivation for people to leave those places. But Arab\Muslim lands are far from "virtually uninhabitable". In fact, while their fertility rates have dropped they have populations that are generally 4x or 5x what they were when I was a kid 50 years ago, and the people are not starving. But what they don't offer is European\American\Western levels of prosperity, freedom or welfare states.

    These young men--and the European refugee influx is overwhelmingly young men--are looking to have an adventure, make a buck in more prosperous lands and try to bang looser white women. They are off to milk the white goose. Which seems like a much easier job than "owning" their own nations: picking a side and fighting to make their own nation have better constitutional government, rule of law and hopefully down the road, prosperity.

    Africa, of course ... even more so. There's been even less intervention there. The wars are their own tribal and big man fights. The population growth has been even more insane and unlike the Arab\Muslims lands, is still going flat out with crazy high fertility. But Africans are low IQ, there's little prospect of things getting better--Africans being able to make them better--so the young men are trying to get to Europe. Again for adventure, making a buck, banging white girls ... milking the white goose.

    Essentially none of this is gated by "splatter". It's lower IQ populations with crappier, less law abiding, less prosperous, nations, right next to higher IQ more prosperous nations ... who insanely have stopped protecting their borders.

    Well, Another Dad,

    From 1960-2000,

    The amount of Muslim “refugees” forced to exodus their own lands and heading to the West was virtually non existent.

    Were Muslim IQ’s just so much higher back then…Is that what explains it ?

    from 2002-2017 the United States of America has spent over $10,000,000,000,000.00 of US taxpayer money invading, bombing, and destroying Middle eastern countries that never actually attacked us on 9-11.

    And you, like many others, are totally “shocked” there is a refugee crisis, (oh my goodness how did this happen ?) and of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact we have been obliterating all these countries for the last 15 years…….No…..Could not possible be!…….Hey. I know why there are all these “refugees” now….Not because of our stupid ,insanely expensive, endless wars and the enormous damage they have inflicted….no, no….its because of their population explosions and low IQ’s….that’s it !

    Well…….I suppose We are all entitled to our own opinions, “Another Dad”. but I have been around since the 1960′s….and I have been watching all this happen…….You are more than welcome to pull the wool over your own eyes if it makes you feel better…just not mine, thank you very much.

    Read More
  105. @Ron Unz
    Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but my strong impression is that over the last 6-7 years, net immigration to America has been something like 90% legal and maybe 10% illegal. Furthermore, all the estimates I've always seen are that roughly half of all illegals actually arrive legally on temporary visas or whatever, and then just overstay. So building a gigantic Mexico Wall would address roughly 5% of the immigration "problem," after which all of Trump's more ignorant followers would give a big cheer and stop paying any attention to the issue. Bill Clinton used to call that sort of thing "Boob Bait for the Bubbas."

    Even those raw numbers might understate the relative impact. Since WN Richard Spencer has been so ferociously demonized by the MSM, he's recently gotten a bit more courageous, and I saw a YouTube video a few weeks ago in which he pointed out that (from the WN perspective) legal immigrants are always much more of a problem than illegals. That's because most illegals come here planning to earn some money and then go home again (although they sometimes stay), while most legals arrive intending to stay here permanently.

    As for the other differences between legals and illegals, I feel it's been rather exaggerated. I doubt much more than about 10% of legal immigrants are highly-skilled (even most H-1Bs probably aren't in that category), and the remainder probably aren't all that hugely different than illegals (many of whom originally came legally after all). I think refugees have been another 5-10% and they're generally low-skilled, but substituting African or Central American refugees for Middle Eastern ones probably wouldn't make much difference.

    One thing that prompted my comment was recently hearing some leading hard-core Alt-Right figure rant and rave about illegal immigration, then add that he wasn't too much concerned about legal immigrants because their numbers were so small by comparison. Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    Utter ignorance of factual reality is hardly a good basis for addressing an important social problem.

    I would like to see some monuments erected with that message chiseled into them, and I’d like to see them at least as ubiquitous as “Holocaust” memorials and museums.

    One of my, for lack of a better word, “epiphanies” occurred when I sat at a state legislative session that was considering some laws on a subject about which I had quite a bit of knowledge and experience.

    The folks testifying, as well as the politicians spewing their views on the matter, both pro and con, displayed such stunningly ineffable and incorrigible ignorance that I completely lost all faith in the process.

    We wallow in ignorance.

    Anyone who has a shred of faith in political systems would do themselves a favor by arranging a similar experience and then take the time to entertain while educating themselves by reading Aristophanes’, “The Knights,” especially if you labor under the illusion that politics and legislative processes protect or improve society in any way.

    Pythagoras advised “Κυάμων ἀπέχεσθαι” (avoiding beans), and it had nothing to do with diet.

    Read More
  106. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Rurik,
    I agree with most of what you wrote, and especially endorse your eloquent response to Veritatis at #93.

    However, perhaps I failed to properly articulate the point I was trying to make: I did not intend the emphasis to be on filthiness, but on what I think is a fact, that the animus of Germans was directed toward East European Jews more than toward 'their own' German Jews.

    Hans Luther claimed this to be the case in statements reported by Jewish Telegraph Agency in 1935.

    I also wished to enter into the information base the fact that the German people were dealing with a staggering number of immigrants whose values and behaviors were antithetical to their own -- sound familiar?

    Nevertheless, "filthiness" was a factor and does matter. Vladimir Jabotinsky was as repulsed by the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Galicia as Hitler was of the debased state of Jews who overcrowded Vienna. Both of these groups of Jewish immigrants were different from the Jews that Jabotinsky, and Hitler, had grown up among, and had been taught and inclined to respect.

    It's worth noting that the Jews who were responsible for the most significant of the betrayals that the Germans suffered -- the starvation, the loss of WWI, the betrayal at Versailles -- were mostly non-German Jews: Weizmann secured the Balfour declaration; he was from Belorussia. Jabotinsky was from Odessa. Rabbi Stephen Wise, perhaps the most mendacious and zealous of the zionists, was of Hungarian origins. On the other hand, Max Warburg, a German Jew who participated in Versailles negotiations -- to be sure, not on behalf of Germans but of his own financial interests-- nevertheless argued that "the Germans are a virile people and should not be disrespected."

    So the core of my argument is that it was primarily "interloper Jews" from Eastern Europe, who were more concerned with fulfilling their zionist fantasy than with respecting the German state and people among whom they dwelt and to whose shelter they flocked as a way-station to their ultimate goal, zionist Palestine; and not the "old line" German Jews who had lived among Germans for centuries, that were the target of German ire and whom Germans sought to expel -- even as it was the zionist agenda that those Jews should use Germany only as a temporary transit-stop.

    Back to the "filth" part: although it is secondary, it is a significant point: in a Charlie Chaplin film produced in 1939, a well-turned out Jewish man tells his family, "they are gassing us," and he gestures as if he is pumping a bug-spray. From fictions like these the holocaust-gas chamber narrative was born. No serious scholar, Jewish or not, claims that, in 1939, Jews were being gassed, i.e. killed in gas chambers.

    Based on a comment made by Dr. David Engel in a lecture on the holocaust, that "in addition to plans to relocate Jews to Madagascar, there were also plans to relocate Jews to Poland," I speculate that NS leadership did collaborate with "big" Jews, whether zionist or not, I can't say, to move "surplus Jews" out of Germany to a Jewish settlement in Poland. In that transit, and because it was a fact known to German Jews, that E. European were not well acquainted with sound hygienic practices,* Germans took special care to protect against diseases that might be exacerbated by poor hygiene. (Engel also observed that after the experience of the difficulties of that huge population bubble among Jews, "steps were taken to reduce the size of the population." Fascinating comment.)

    This little bit of detail plays directly into the use of Xyklon B by Germans to ensure that typhus did not infest the Jewish people that Germans were, in fact, attempting to shelter, in collaboration with "Big" Jews.

    While we're at it: it is also a known fact that some Jews deliberately spread disease in camps in acts of sabotage, causing the deaths of many, perhaps thousands, of their co-religionists.

    BUT in general, I agree that other Jewish acts of betrayal of the German people were the basis for legitimate German anger.

    ----

    * a fact that was embarrassing to German Jews in the USA who were financing these activities, and had also been a matter of major concern to Arthur Ruppin as he developed infrastructure and institutions for the settlement of Jews in Palestine: Ruppin insisted that Jews observe habits of hygiene, or be forced to return to the places they came from.

    thanks SC. It’s true, I suspect that writing can be therapeutic. and also I find that certain people can inspire in certain ways. I suspect that’s one of the benefits of lurking around a comment section like this, is you’re able to enjoy and participate in mutually edifying conversations.

    the animus of Germans was directed toward East European Jews more than toward ‘their own’ German Jews.

    I’m sure this was the case. Didn’t thousands, perhaps more, German Jews wear the uniform of the Wehrmacht? I think there were a lot of officers too. And of course I’m aware of the Jewish fiends of Hungary, like Bela Kun. And of course the genocidal monsters like Kaganovich in the East. From what I’ve glimmered, the hatred of the chosen was far worse in places like Poland than in Germany or Austria, or the farther you went West. But then look at what the Jewish NKVD did in places like Katyn, or Ukraine, once they came to power?

    I confess that when I read accounts of their incomprehensible hatred unleashed, it makes me feel sympathy for the Pals, knowing the kind of hatred and cruelty these people are singularly capable of.

    As for the ‘filth’, yes I remember reading some things that Gen Patton had said about it. I guess it was rather beyond the Pale. One wonders… how many men like Patton or Pat Tillman started out gung-ho to slay the dragons of their two minute hate, only to realize they were duped? How many of such men and women were thus treated to the Patton/Tillman treatment?

    “they are gassing us,” and he gestures as if he is pumping a bug-spray.

    and yes, the silly stories about homicidal gas chambers must surely have came about from the typhus delousing

    here an American soldier delousing a woman

    so it wouldn’t have been too much of a leap for them to make these claims.

    what I suspect, is that in Germany around that time, there must have been some general animosity towards “the Jews” for the betrayal at the end of WWI, by the “Big Jews” in London and NY. And the knowledge that it was Jews who had fomented communism in Russia, and murdered the Romanovs, and set about genociding the ‘best of the Gentiles in Ukraine, and had brought with them the cultural rot of the Weimar regime. So as Hitler tried to prevent another world war, but seeing that is was being forced by “the (Big) Jews in London and NY on the world, the German people (including a lot of Jews), became exasperated, and that let to kristallnacht, and the general will to see many Jews rounded up and put into concentration camps, much like Americans did to Japanese Americans.

    That’s sort of how I see it.

    Read More
  107. Rurik says:
    @Numinous

    But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They’re taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries.
     
    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn't they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process.
     
    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding "savages" with guns and artillery.

    (Now, I wouldn't approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you'll see settlements spring up in no time. They won't ask for any help from you.)

    Your plea to “give us a shot at doing that now” is not something the West can grant you since it’s not the 17th century anymore and there isn’t any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.
     
    First, I'm not talking about the "West". I'm talking about the former settler colonies. I couldn't care less if Norway or Germany or Portugal closed their borders. I'm talking about North America and Australasia.
    Second, it's all relative. The former settler colonies are very lightly populated compared to the Old World (I'm talking Europe and Asia). They can easily absorb many more, and they are doing so. Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the "average America", they do not. Which is why you won't succeed in stopping people from immigrating unless something seriously catastrophic happens. Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don't treat their current inhabitants as "violent savages" to be exterminated.

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    ever read Dickens?

    young men (and often women) are adventurous, at least some of them. They want to go to distant shores and explore, see, experience. I’m the same way.

    you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)

    bullshit

    if the immigrants who came here were beautiful young men and women, who came with energy and ideas and contributed to the greater benefit of all, then no on in their right mind would be against immigration. But the fact is that the ones that come (not every single one, but the vast majority) are the dregs and the losers. They come for the bennies and EBT cards, not because they love and respect our societies and people. They usually harbor a deep resentment against our societies and people, and this is obvious to anyone with half a brain, including you.

    I’m talking about North America and Australasia.

    are you now?

    have your sights set do you?

    They can easily absorb many more

    perhaps they can absorb an equal amount of Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus, and we can build our very own Kashmirs right in America’s heartland! And maybe even have a little nuclear war! Isn’t diversity and multiculturalism great?!

    Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not.

    well, if the election of Donald Trump is any indication, you’re wrong about that.

    Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don’t treat their current inhabitants as “violent savages” to be exterminated.

    ever heard of Omar Mateen?

    Seung-Hui Cho?

    Nidal Malik Hasan was the son of immigrants it’s true, but even being born here didn’t assuage his murderous hatred for Americans, and his fellow “comrades”.

    How many Muslims does India import every year Numinous?

    how many of America’s sons and daughters should American parents be willing to see raped or murdered so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits of diversity? Eh?

    Every single nation on the planet, (and that includes India, Australia and the U.S.) should determine their immigration policies based on what’s best for the respective citizens of their respective nations. This is a no-brainer my friend, and it’s long overdue for the people of the West to realize it. We’ve been getting colonized by the people of the third world for quite long enough now, and we’d simply like to tell the world politely that now that Trump is in office, we’re going to stop destroying other people’s nations on behalf of genocidal Zionists, and stop destroying our own by inviting in people who harbor deep resentments against us and do not assimilate to our ways. OK?

    Read More
  108. KenH says:
    @Numinous

    But why must third world people improve their fortunes by migrating to the white West? They’re taking the easy way out and should be working to improve conditions in their native countries.
     
    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn't they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    Europeans built Canada, America and S. Africa out of untamed wilderness and had to subdue violent savages (Amerindians, Zulus in S. Africa) in the process.
     
    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding "savages" with guns and artillery.

    (Now, I wouldn't approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you'll see settlements spring up in no time. They won't ask for any help from you.)

    Your plea to “give us a shot at doing that now” is not something the West can grant you since it’s not the 17th century anymore and there isn’t any uncharted and/or lightly populated territories to explore, conquer and exploit for economic gain except for Antarctica.
     
    First, I'm not talking about the "West". I'm talking about the former settler colonies. I couldn't care less if Norway or Germany or Portugal closed their borders. I'm talking about North America and Australasia.
    Second, it's all relative. The former settler colonies are very lightly populated compared to the Old World (I'm talking Europe and Asia). They can easily absorb many more, and they are doing so. Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the "average America", they do not. Which is why you won't succeed in stopping people from immigrating unless something seriously catastrophic happens. Because the current immigrants (illegals excepted) subject themselves to the laws and procedures of their destination lands, and don't treat their current inhabitants as "violent savages" to be exterminated.

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?

    The early settlers were fleeing genuine religious persecution and often suffered disease and starvation upon arrival in the new world. There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing and free smart phones with which to plot terrorist attacks and/or film sexual assualts of native women.

    You are only fleeing a dysfunctional, corrupt nation and simply want a taste of the good life (white life) in the West.

    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding “savages” with guns and artillery.

    Well we sure didn’t see any Hindus doing it, did we? Early settlers did not have many artillery pieces and had to use semi-accurate muzzle loading long rifles and flintock pistols against marauding Ameridians. They were actually at a disadvantage in battle due to the time it took to reload these weapons. I think you need to crack some books on that period.

    (Now, I wouldn’t approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)

    Yeah, right. Immigrants from poor countries can’t succeed in or fix their own nations but will arrive in America and Australia and suddenly build thriving, first world settlements in its empty spaces that will be the envy of all. I’m sold.

    Africa has lots of empty space for a Hindustan project. Why not gather a few million of your brethren and head there?

    Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not.

    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration. Anti-immigration nationalist parties are on the rise throughout Europe and are on the cusp of victory in France, Austria and now Germany. I can’t find any evidence where citizens throughout the West are clamoring for a Hindustan project within their borders.

    You are very delusional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing
     
    Sounds great to me. Let's get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.

    Well we sure didn’t see any Hindus doing it, did we?
     
    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn't want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration.
     
    Who's that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?
    All studies indicate that the vast majority of his votes came from regular Republicans, the kind that would vote for a Rhesus monkey if it sported the R-label and spouted low taxes and Supreme Court judges. And I never heard him say much about legal immigration during the campaign. In fact, he seemed to be in favor of it once or twice. But then, we both know he is an empty suit and a puppet whose strings are being pulled by Steve Bannon (and Stephen Miller.) So your lot can indeed hope.
  109. Numinous says:
    @KenH

    Why did your ancestors take the easy way out and migrate to the colonies? Why didn’t they stay in their native European countries and try to improve conditions there?
     
    The early settlers were fleeing genuine religious persecution and often suffered disease and starvation upon arrival in the new world. There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing and free smart phones with which to plot terrorist attacks and/or film sexual assualts of native women.

    You are only fleeing a dysfunctional, corrupt nation and simply want a taste of the good life (white life) in the West.


    Yeah, right, only Europeans knew how to cut trees, clear land, plant crops, etc. Only Europeans knew how to raise armies. And I am sure it required enormous courage to blow away arrow- and spear-wielding “savages” with guns and artillery.
     
    Well we sure didn't see any Hindus doing it, did we? Early settlers did not have many artillery pieces and had to use semi-accurate muzzle loading long rifles and flintock pistols against marauding Ameridians. They were actually at a disadvantage in battle due to the time it took to reload these weapons. I think you need to crack some books on that period.

    (Now, I wouldn’t approve of this, but if you let immigrants from poor countries go take over some portions of the vast lands owned by the federal government in the western states, you’ll see settlements spring up in no time. They won’t ask for any help from you.)
     
    Yeah, right. Immigrants from poor countries can't succeed in or fix their own nations but will arrive in America and Australia and suddenly build thriving, first world settlements in its empty spaces that will be the envy of all. I'm sold.

    Africa has lots of empty space for a Hindustan project. Why not gather a few million of your brethren and head there?


    Much as you would like to think your views represent those of the “average America”, they do not.
     
    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration. Anti-immigration nationalist parties are on the rise throughout Europe and are on the cusp of victory in France, Austria and now Germany. I can't find any evidence where citizens throughout the West are clamoring for a Hindustan project within their borders.

    You are very delusional.

    There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing

    Sounds great to me. Let’s get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.

    Well we sure didn’t see any Hindus doing it, did we?

    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn’t want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration.

    Who’s that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?
    All studies indicate that the vast majority of his votes came from regular Republicans, the kind that would vote for a Rhesus monkey if it sported the R-label and spouted low taxes and Supreme Court judges. And I never heard him say much about legal immigration during the campaign. In fact, he seemed to be in favor of it once or twice. But then, we both know he is an empty suit and a puppet whose strings are being pulled by Steve Bannon (and Stephen Miller.) So your lot can indeed hope.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Sounds great to me. Let’s get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.
     
    Friedman was Jewish and only advocated open immigration for America. He would have never made the same proposal for the Jewish homeland of Israel. Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West? Why don't you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?

    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn’t want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

     

    The dirty and bloody work of clearing the land of hostile Amerindians was already done by white men. The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed. How would Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims treat a small number of white men taking precious few jobs in India? Probably the same way as your article described but likely worse.

    Who’s that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?

     

    Take away the estimated several million illegal aliens who voted and he wins the popular vote by at least one million. But regardless, our system is based on the electoral college which he won fair and square, not the popular vote. And he won 30 of the 50 states.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don't want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations. If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.

  110. Dianna says:
    @Rurik
    Hello Veritatis,

    Great post as usual.

    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there’s a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.
     
    I'm an amateur student of history Veritatis, and one of my main areas of study is the world wars, and world war II in particular, but as every historian who studies these wars knows, they're not really two separate wars, but that the second one was a direct consequence of the injustices meted out during and following the first one.

    Anyways, when one studies these epic human atrocities, one is struck by the sheer momentous evil of it all. And by that I mean the incomprehensible suffering, and often for suffering's sake. And of course the scope, as some 60+ million people were slaughtered, often horribly, in the second war alone. And that doesn't count all the hundreds of millions of people who died from the murderous barbarity of their own governments- in that bloody and horrific century.

    Knowing all of this, and being fundamentally appalled at the demons that inhabit man's id, and his capacity for sadistic cruelty, I remember a quiet little prayer I made at the beginning of this century, that the forces of evil might be held at bay, and that I might live to see man evolving beyond those nightmarish images I had in my mind of emaciated bodies in ditches, and scenes from Dresden and Hiroshima and Nanking. That was my little prayer to the universe, or God or providence, or what have you. (I'm not a believer in any organized religion per se, but feel in my soul a great capacity for spirituality, nonetheless)

    So, knowing what I know about human nature, and the horrors of the twentieth century, and how most of those horrors, particularly in Europe and the Middle East were motivated and perpetrated by Zionists, when 9/11 happened, I lost heart.

    I knew this was the act of the Fiend, and that the intention and motivation for 9/11 was that the 21 century also be one of horrors writ large, and human suffering and injustice beyond comprehension. It changed my whole life when 9/11 happened, and I saw the Orwellian mendacity poison the narrative with its devil's lies 24/7.

    Soon my country was bombing and destroying other people's countries right and left. The Ministry of Truth was kicking out lies so fast my head spun. We were sacrificing our hard won freedoms for promises of security from the very people who had murdered so many of us on that singularly heinous day. I had very good reason for pessimism, and that might be the understatement of the century.

    So, when a man came to the fore, who seemed to question the merit and wisdom of all these wars, and called the politicians who waged them liars, I suddenly felt a surge of hope, for the first time since I lost it when Obama proved that he too was just another war criminal stooge.

    But it goes far deeper than just repudiating and ending the wars. Because Trump has also talked about auditing the Fed, and this is revolutionary Veritatis! It is my sincere belief, that all of the horrors of the world wars, and the unending strife and suffering in the Middle East, are all due to a small cabal of sinister men having concentrated control over the governments and media of the West, by using the Federal Reserve Bank to loot the wealth of the people and use their own money against them. The Fed is the center of it all. The Eye of Mordor, so to speak, out from which all these wars and strife and evil all emanate. We may manage to end some of these vastly unpopular wars for now, but as long as the Fed remains in control of our economies and wealth and money supply, we will be at the mercy of the men who control the Fed.

    So, if Trump, and others like him, like Putin in Russia, and Le Pen in France, etc.. can manage somehow to wrest control of the West from these dominant men, who have us all under an iron grip of control, and are using our own institutions against us, in order to enslave and destroy us, then he may not be the Second Coming, for sure, but when you consider the words and earnest prayers of the Christ Himself, that man learn to love his neighbors, rather than murder them, and to make peace, rather than wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, and how he turned over the tables of the money changers, and ordered them out of the temple of the Lord, well then for me, the divinity of the man saving the world is simply not an imperative, whether it's the Christ Himself, or simply a crass and egotistical man who loves more than he hates.

    While we should never put our trust in man, I also pray that our president will fight on the side of goodness and mercy, and let’s not forget justice! The Lord’s will be done.

    Read More
  111. Rurik says:

    While we should never put our trust in man, I also pray that our president will fight on the side of goodness and mercy, and let’s not forget justice! The Lord’s will be done.

    amen Dianna

    and I for one am convinced that the Lord, whatever name you call Him by, does not approve of wars and mass-murder for fun and profit

    sometimes the Lord works though the most unlikely of vessels

    Read More
  112. KenH says:
    @Numinous

    There was no welfare, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing
     
    Sounds great to me. Let's get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.

    Well we sure didn’t see any Hindus doing it, did we?
     
    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn't want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

    Donald Trump got elected president by promising to build a wall, deport illegal aliens and reduce legal immigration.
     
    Who's that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?
    All studies indicate that the vast majority of his votes came from regular Republicans, the kind that would vote for a Rhesus monkey if it sported the R-label and spouted low taxes and Supreme Court judges. And I never heard him say much about legal immigration during the campaign. In fact, he seemed to be in favor of it once or twice. But then, we both know he is an empty suit and a puppet whose strings are being pulled by Steve Bannon (and Stephen Miller.) So your lot can indeed hope.

    Sounds great to me. Let’s get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.

    Friedman was Jewish and only advocated open immigration for America. He would have never made the same proposal for the Jewish homeland of Israel. Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West? Why don’t you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?

    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn’t want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

    The dirty and bloody work of clearing the land of hostile Amerindians was already done by white men. The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed. How would Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims treat a small number of white men taking precious few jobs in India? Probably the same way as your article described but likely worse.

    Who’s that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?

    Take away the estimated several million illegal aliens who voted and he wins the popular vote by at least one million. But regardless, our system is based on the electoral college which he won fair and square, not the popular vote. And he won 30 of the 50 states.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don’t want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations. If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don’t want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations.
     
    Hmm.....you assert something without proof, take it for granted, and that use that to contradict something I never said. Either your logical reasoning skills are sorely lacking or your reading comprehension is. I'm going with both.

    If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.
     
    If they are "legions" as you claim, you (and your administration) need to be very, very afraid already. If you haven't built that bunker already, I would start on it pronto.

    The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed.
     
    Clearly you have never met a Sikh!

    Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West?
     
    Hmm....so there's a "brown people" cabal somewhere that is plotting to invade your country? I need to start attending its meetings. Seriously, if we "brown people" were actually hellbent on leaving our countries, you'd know it. And right now you don't, believe me.

    Why don’t you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?
     
    If Japan, China, etc. start handing out visas to us, we will. As I said earlier, we are law-abiding folks who are easy to get along with. :) Other than that, it's about resources and population density. Why go to an already crowded country?
  113. Numinous says:
    @KenH

    Sounds great to me. Let’s get rid of the welfare state and have open immigration instead, as Milton Friedman said.
     
    Friedman was Jewish and only advocated open immigration for America. He would have never made the same proposal for the Jewish homeland of Israel. Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West? Why don't you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?

    Oh, they tried, dear boy, they tried. But your lot kicked them out as they didn’t want the competition. They did the same to the Chinese earlier in California, by the way.

     

    The dirty and bloody work of clearing the land of hostile Amerindians was already done by white men. The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed. How would Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims treat a small number of white men taking precious few jobs in India? Probably the same way as your article described but likely worse.

    Who’s that again? The guy that won the second most votes in the recent election?

     

    Take away the estimated several million illegal aliens who voted and he wins the popular vote by at least one million. But regardless, our system is based on the electoral college which he won fair and square, not the popular vote. And he won 30 of the 50 states.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don't want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations. If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don’t want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations.

    Hmm…..you assert something without proof, take it for granted, and that use that to contradict something I never said. Either your logical reasoning skills are sorely lacking or your reading comprehension is. I’m going with both.

    If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.

    If they are “legions” as you claim, you (and your administration) need to be very, very afraid already. If you haven’t built that bunker already, I would start on it pronto.

    The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed.

    Clearly you have never met a Sikh!

    Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West?

    Hmm….so there’s a “brown people” cabal somewhere that is plotting to invade your country? I need to start attending its meetings. Seriously, if we “brown people” were actually hellbent on leaving our countries, you’d know it. And right now you don’t, believe me.

    Why don’t you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?

    If Japan, China, etc. start handing out visas to us, we will. As I said earlier, we are law-abiding folks who are easy to get along with. :) Other than that, it’s about resources and population density. Why go to an already crowded country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    If they are “legions” as you claim, you (and your administration) need to be very, very afraid already. If you haven’t built that bunker already, I would start on it pronto.
     
    Well, a Roman legion was a little over 5,000 men, so I don't know about that ...
  114. KenH says:

    Hmm…..you assert something without proof, take it for granted, and that use that to contradict something I never said. Either your logical reasoning skills are sorely lacking or your reading comprehension is. I’m going with both.

    Let’s see, 80% of Republican votes come from white people which means only 20% of non-whites voted Republican. It’s obvious which party the other 80% voted for and you can easily find information to this effect if you weren’t a lazy researcher. Some Indians are supposed to be smart, but obviously you aren’t one of them since you can’t add 2+2.

    If Japan, China, etc. start handing out visas to us, we will.

    I see, you claim you’re not hellbent to leave India, but would jump at the chance if some other nations gave you a visa.

    If they are “legions” as you claim,

    Reagan won 60% of the white vote in 1980 when America was around 80% white (92% of the electorate) and won the popular vote and electoral vote in a landslide. Trump wins 60% of the vote in 2016 when whites declined to 61% of the population (72% of the electorate) and he loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral vote.

    America being 40% non-white (roughly 100 million people) constitutes as legion and is unprecedented in American history. Are you still struggling to understand?

    Other than that, it’s about resources and population density. Why go to an already crowded country?

    Stop breeding like flies. Encourage your women to only have 1-2 children and use contraception. Nothing like people in third world nations demanding the right to emigrate to a lightly populated Western nation so they can flee the consequences of its own irresponsible breeding patterns and out of control fecundity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Stop breeding like flies. Encourage your women to only have 1-2 children and use contraception.
     
    Would you say that to your European ancestors too? We may be breeding like flies, but so were they AND they spread like vermin, taking over half the planet.

    An enclave of Hindustan in America wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. It would be a big improvement over Hillbilly Utopia, with much better food, lower alcoholism rates, much lower drug addiction, and virtually no broken families.
  115. Numinous says:
    @KenH

    Hmm…..you assert something without proof, take it for granted, and that use that to contradict something I never said. Either your logical reasoning skills are sorely lacking or your reading comprehension is. I’m going with both.
     
    Let's see, 80% of Republican votes come from white people which means only 20% of non-whites voted Republican. It's obvious which party the other 80% voted for and you can easily find information to this effect if you weren't a lazy researcher. Some Indians are supposed to be smart, but obviously you aren't one of them since you can't add 2+2.

    If Japan, China, etc. start handing out visas to us, we will.
     
    I see, you claim you're not hellbent to leave India, but would jump at the chance if some other nations gave you a visa.

    If they are “legions” as you claim,
     
    Reagan won 60% of the white vote in 1980 when America was around 80% white (92% of the electorate) and won the popular vote and electoral vote in a landslide. Trump wins 60% of the vote in 2016 when whites declined to 61% of the population (72% of the electorate) and he loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral vote.

    America being 40% non-white (roughly 100 million people) constitutes as legion and is unprecedented in American history. Are you still struggling to understand?


    Other than that, it’s about resources and population density. Why go to an already crowded country?
     
    Stop breeding like flies. Encourage your women to only have 1-2 children and use contraception. Nothing like people in third world nations demanding the right to emigrate to a lightly populated Western nation so they can flee the consequences of its own irresponsible breeding patterns and out of control fecundity.

    Stop breeding like flies. Encourage your women to only have 1-2 children and use contraception.

    Would you say that to your European ancestors too? We may be breeding like flies, but so were they AND they spread like vermin, taking over half the planet.

    An enclave of Hindustan in America wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. It would be a big improvement over Hillbilly Utopia, with much better food, lower alcoholism rates, much lower drug addiction, and virtually no broken families.

    Read More
  116. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Numinous

    Most third world immigrants vote Democrat for the free stuff which is why we don’t want you here and which contradicts your claims that third world people are model and trustworthy citizens of their host nations.
     
    Hmm.....you assert something without proof, take it for granted, and that use that to contradict something I never said. Either your logical reasoning skills are sorely lacking or your reading comprehension is. I'm going with both.

    If not for the legions of third world immigrants, Trump would have won the popular vote in a landslide.
     
    If they are "legions" as you claim, you (and your administration) need to be very, very afraid already. If you haven't built that bunker already, I would start on it pronto.

    The Sikhs would never have come if there was a chance of getting scalped or killed.
     
    Clearly you have never met a Sikh!

    Why are you brown people so hellbent on leaving India, Pakistan and elsewhere to come to the West?
     
    Hmm....so there's a "brown people" cabal somewhere that is plotting to invade your country? I need to start attending its meetings. Seriously, if we "brown people" were actually hellbent on leaving our countries, you'd know it. And right now you don't, believe me.

    Why don’t you want to emigrate to Japan, China, Turkey, Brazil or Zanzibar?
     
    If Japan, China, etc. start handing out visas to us, we will. As I said earlier, we are law-abiding folks who are easy to get along with. :) Other than that, it's about resources and population density. Why go to an already crowded country?

    If they are “legions” as you claim, you (and your administration) need to be very, very afraid already. If you haven’t built that bunker already, I would start on it pronto.

    Well, a Roman legion was a little over 5,000 men, so I don’t know about that …

    Read More
  117. Veritatis says:
    @Rurik
    Hello Veritatis,

    Great post as usual.

    A commenter observed Trump might be killed, like Jesus was. I agree there’s a risk he could be sacrificed (unless he chooses more wars), but not for the same teachings. Trump is a natural competitor, rallying his people in a zero-sum game. Jesus came to tell all that there is one common destiny, and it is transcendent.
     
    I'm an amateur student of history Veritatis, and one of my main areas of study is the world wars, and world war II in particular, but as every historian who studies these wars knows, they're not really two separate wars, but that the second one was a direct consequence of the injustices meted out during and following the first one.

    Anyways, when one studies these epic human atrocities, one is struck by the sheer momentous evil of it all. And by that I mean the incomprehensible suffering, and often for suffering's sake. And of course the scope, as some 60+ million people were slaughtered, often horribly, in the second war alone. And that doesn't count all the hundreds of millions of people who died from the murderous barbarity of their own governments- in that bloody and horrific century.

    Knowing all of this, and being fundamentally appalled at the demons that inhabit man's id, and his capacity for sadistic cruelty, I remember a quiet little prayer I made at the beginning of this century, that the forces of evil might be held at bay, and that I might live to see man evolving beyond those nightmarish images I had in my mind of emaciated bodies in ditches, and scenes from Dresden and Hiroshima and Nanking. That was my little prayer to the universe, or God or providence, or what have you. (I'm not a believer in any organized religion per se, but feel in my soul a great capacity for spirituality, nonetheless)

    So, knowing what I know about human nature, and the horrors of the twentieth century, and how most of those horrors, particularly in Europe and the Middle East were motivated and perpetrated by Zionists, when 9/11 happened, I lost heart.

    I knew this was the act of the Fiend, and that the intention and motivation for 9/11 was that the 21 century also be one of horrors writ large, and human suffering and injustice beyond comprehension. It changed my whole life when 9/11 happened, and I saw the Orwellian mendacity poison the narrative with its devil's lies 24/7.

    Soon my country was bombing and destroying other people's countries right and left. The Ministry of Truth was kicking out lies so fast my head spun. We were sacrificing our hard won freedoms for promises of security from the very people who had murdered so many of us on that singularly heinous day. I had very good reason for pessimism, and that might be the understatement of the century.

    So, when a man came to the fore, who seemed to question the merit and wisdom of all these wars, and called the politicians who waged them liars, I suddenly felt a surge of hope, for the first time since I lost it when Obama proved that he too was just another war criminal stooge.

    But it goes far deeper than just repudiating and ending the wars. Because Trump has also talked about auditing the Fed, and this is revolutionary Veritatis! It is my sincere belief, that all of the horrors of the world wars, and the unending strife and suffering in the Middle East, are all due to a small cabal of sinister men having concentrated control over the governments and media of the West, by using the Federal Reserve Bank to loot the wealth of the people and use their own money against them. The Fed is the center of it all. The Eye of Mordor, so to speak, out from which all these wars and strife and evil all emanate. We may manage to end some of these vastly unpopular wars for now, but as long as the Fed remains in control of our economies and wealth and money supply, we will be at the mercy of the men who control the Fed.

    So, if Trump, and others like him, like Putin in Russia, and Le Pen in France, etc.. can manage somehow to wrest control of the West from these dominant men, who have us all under an iron grip of control, and are using our own institutions against us, in order to enslave and destroy us, then he may not be the Second Coming, for sure, but when you consider the words and earnest prayers of the Christ Himself, that man learn to love his neighbors, rather than murder them, and to make peace, rather than wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, and how he turned over the tables of the money changers, and ordered them out of the temple of the Lord, well then for me, the divinity of the man saving the world is simply not an imperative, whether it's the Christ Himself, or simply a crass and egotistical man who loves more than he hates.

    Hello, Rurik! I hadn’t seen this post, otherwise would have responded, there is beauty and anguish and… Hope.

    It made me think of Augustine (there, I show my colors!) who, shocked by a barbaric sack of Rome in 410 went on to write City of God. In a nutshell, “perfection is not of this world”, but yes, God writes straight in crooked lines. And yes, in the battle between good and evil, we must fight, with eyes open, either as Aragorn, or Frodo or Sam. And look at Gollum. Was Gollum fiendish? Because he was certainly indispensable in defeating Sauron.

    And then, in an individual life, what weighs the most? The circumstances of the world in which we inhabit, the wars, the injustice and suffering and abuse by the powerful, or the everyday stories of love and friendship? How much is the weight of our lot, how much our attitude, the way we chart our course? (I’m thinking of rereading Les Misérables or Tale of Two Cities)

    And in this everyday, can we hope for a “superabundance of generosity” which is God’s way of acting?
    “That way of doing things which lavishly produces an entire universe in order to prepare a place on earth for that mysterious being, man. That way of doing things by which, in a final, unheard-of lavishness, he gives himself away in order to save that ‘thinking reed’ , man, and to bring him to his goal. This ultimate and unheard-of event will always defy the calculating mind of correct thinkers.”

    Will we live to see that just as Hamlet-gallant-Prince-of-Denmark, with his search for truth avoided a civil war for his country, so might less-gallant Trump, with serene Pence, calm Mattis and redoubtable Tillerson, chart a different course? Or will Guilderstein and the other fellow win first? We live in interesting times, perfection is not of this world, and Hamlet was a Christ.
    Un abrazo.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.