Saturday, June 23, 2018

America is a land of, by and for Immigrants! Really? Says who?

Today we focus on immigration - or should we call it immigrant invasion? Most everything we have been taught on the subject has been a lie - so what else is new, eh?
Here is the bottom line - all of us will be impacted by what has happened so far and whatever will happen from here on. The best way I can summarize it is what I replied to someone on Disqus a few days ago - all mass migrations end up in war - 

DaWall might not work, but how do we know? - http://crushlimbraw.blogspo... - read a few.
Is DaWall stupid? No, this is STUPID -http://crushlimbraw.blogspo... - can you see DaBigPicture?
This is STUPIDER - http://crushlimbraw.blogspo... - did you know?
This is STUPIDEST - http://crushlimbraw.blogspo... - get back to me after you read them.
That is history!
And don't forget to word search this archive for anything related to IMMIGRATION!

The Immorality of Immigration | The Z Blog


In all times and all places, the people in charge have certain primary duties, obligations that come before anything else they like to do. It does not matter what form of government is in place, the rulers, for example, have to maintain public order. Being the tribal chief is useless if your people and lands are in chaos. For that matter, having a tribal chief is useless if it means living in chaos. Therefore, one of the primary duties of all rulers in all times and all places is to maintain public order by enforcing laws and local customs.
There are other primary duties of the ruler, like organizing the common defense that are universal to all people and forms of government. Then there are primary duties that are peculiar to a people or to a form of government. If the ruler is understood to be a god, then the ruler and his people have a duty to maintain that myth. A central part of that social order is the transcendent nature of the order itself. In modern western countries, protecting property rights and enforcing contracts is counted as a primary duty of the state.
One of the more destructive things to happen to America over the last half century is the sacralizing of immigration by the followers of Emma Lazarus. The endless repetition of the nonsense phrase “nation of immigrants” has turned a temporary necessity a century ago into an essential element of the nation’s founding mythology. The fact that immigration is a violation of the state’s primary duty to the people is excused, because the immigrant now has a superior place in the moral order. The state is now in service to foreigners.
In a nation like America, one that allegedly is built on consensual government, citizenship has great value. In fact, the most valuable thing to a citizen of a representative democracy is his citizenship. The reason for this, is that citizenship is an ownership stake in the nation itself. In theory, the American government was voluntarily founded as an agreement among individuals, invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare and to regulate the relations among its members. In short, we are shareholders in America.
If you had the option of selling your citizenship, let’s say at some sort of auction, where you get money for your place as an American citizen, there would be no shortage of bidders. For example, there is no shortage of buyers for the EB-5 visa, which costs $500,000. That’s right, you can buy citizenship from the US government. Your citizenship is something of value and therefore, the state has a duty to protect it, just as they have a duty to protect your property rights. This is a primary duty of government.
When the American government willy-nilly hands out citizenship papers to millions of foreigners every year, it is, in effect, stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else. This is no different than a company diluting the value of its shares, by selling additional shares. It’s why open borders fanatics swear that immigration makes us all richer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They know it is essential that people believe this as even the sacred immigrant is not enough to justify theft.
Now, the argument from open borders people and libertarian loons is that immigration is not just holy and beneficial, but that the duly elected officials are passing these laws, so it is legitimate. The trouble is, we don’t live in a democracy. When 50% plus one vote to rob the 50% minus one, it is still theft, even if it comes after an election. This is why America is not a democracy and it is also why democracy was famously called two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. The very nature of democracy makes it an immoral form of rule.
Additionally, a primary duty of the modern state is the maintenance of equality before the law. In fact, this is what makes the law legitimate. Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed, but those laws apply to all citizens equally. The very nature of immigration violates this principle. Immigration steals from some citizens for the benefit of foreigners and the benefit of a small number of connected citizens. This is true for quasi-immigration schemes like guest workers, as well as for permanent settlement.
If the primary duty of the state is to safeguard the citizens, including the value of their citizenship and maintain equality before the law, then immigration by its very nature is a direct violation of the social compact. It makes a mockery of the very idea of consensual government and sows distrust among the people. It is why all mass immigration quickly leads to a breakdown of order, because it erodes the legitimacy of the ruling authority, as the people see they are no longer willing or able to fulfill their basic duties as rulers.
That does not preclude all immigration. It’s just that the bar is is extremely high. In order to justify that which is naturally and always immoral, the offset must exceed the cost of the deed. Since this is impossible in the modern age, the followers of Emma Lazarus have been forced to turn morality on its head, claiming the first duty of the state is to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. It has turned America into a bust out where everything of value, including citizenship, is sold for the benefit of a few.

Fake News and immigration - By Jack Kerwick


Unfortunately, Fake News is alive and all too well.
This was witnessed in spades this past week as the Fake News/Kill Trump media lied through its fangs about the President on immigration.
The Fake Newsies, at least 90% of whom are Democrat Party operatives, waxed hysteria over the “separation” of Hispanic children from their “immigrant” parents, i.e. those who entered America illegally through the southern border.
Of course, the blame for all of this was laid at the feet of the President, who was excoriated by his political enemies in Washington D.C. and their apologists and fellow partisans in the Fake News industry for his “zero tolerance” policy.
By now, any remotely honest observer of the political scene should know that the truth is profoundly otherwise than what fake journalists and commentators would have us think.
First, the “separation of families” for which Trump is being blamed is a feature of a policy that was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law back in 2008 by George W. Bush.  This policy was continued throughout Barack Obama’s two terms. 
Democracy-The God That...Hans-Hermann HoppeBest Price: $27.99Buy New $39.59(as of 06:50 EDT - Details)https://www.lewrockwell.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/amazon-ad-link-lr/img/buy-from-tan.gif

In fact, the emotionally-charged photos of detention facilities circulated by the Fake News media that were designed to convict Trump of heartlessness were taken while Obama was President.
This is one crucial respect in which coverage of this issue reveals itself for the Fake News that it is.  Yet it is certainly not the only respect.
Second, that for a decade—the decade that their fellow partisans held control of the levers of power in D.C.—fake journalists didn’t utter a peep about this policy for which they are now blasting Trump proves that they are cooking a controversy for partisan political purposes.
This isn’t journalism. It is advocacy. It is political.
It is fake.
Third, the vast majority of those crying over the “separation of families” have spent decades undermining the sanctity of the family at every conceivable turn.  The idea of “traditional family values” is one upon which this crew has set its sights with a vengeance.  They have not only mocked and ridiculed all things religious (and, particularly, Christian), they have aggressively sought to fundamentally transform the entire cultural and legal landscape.
Those who have just now discovered the sanctity of the family—and make no mistakes, when they shed their tears (however fake, like their news, these tears undoubtedly are), they imply their recognition of this spiritual and moral reality—have campaigned inexhaustibly for such family-crippling things as: no-fault divorce; de-stigmatizing both co-habitation outside of marriage and illegitimacy; sexual promiscuity; free contraceptives; the empowerment of the State (Child Protective Services) to remove children from their parents, i.e. to “separate families”; the empowerment of children to divorce their parents; the elevation of homosexuality as something to be celebrated as a viable alternative to heterosexuality; and so-called “same-sex marriage.”
Most importantly, these same people who are now crying over children being separated from their parents have been championing the “right” of mothers to kill the children in their wombs, children who, at that stage in their development, literally have no one to sustain them but their mothers.
Fourth, as President Trump said three years ago when he announced his bid for the presidency, some of those crossing our southern border are bad people.  Border agents, among the bravest and most patriotic of Americans (and many of whom happen to be Hispanic), have readily attested to the truth of Trump’s statement.
People who resolve to undermine a nation’s sovereignty by breaking its most fundamental of laws are willing to do virtually anything else to fulfill their desires.  It is understandable that they should want to leave their home countries and come to America so as to provide a better lives for themselves and their families. But unless it is morally permissible for one’s personal happiness to be purchased at any and all costs—unless the ends always justify the means—this doesn’t change the fact that such people disrespect America and her citizens when they invade our country.
The point, here, is that these people have also sent their children—some as young as four years-old—across multiple countries, in some cases, and extremely dangerous terrain just so that they can eventually get here. Parents have given their young daughters contraceptives in the expectation that these girls would be raped by human predators.
American-born children can and have been separated from their American-born parents for offenses that pale in comparison to such egregious abuses.
And it isn’t just parents who have weaponized children in this way.  Many of the “parents” and other adult “relatives” aren’t related to these kids at all.  The US government is trying to protect these children by making sure that they aren’t released into the custody of negligent, abusive, criminal adults. 
The Politically Incorr...Thomas E. Woods Jr.Best Price: $0.99Buy New $10.00(as of 08:05 EDT - Details)https://www.lewrockwell.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/amazon-ad-link-lr/img/buy-from-tan.gif

Finally, during a conversation with Democrats and some Republicans over immigration policy some time ago, Trump was said to have referred to some Third World countries from which his opponents wanted to encourage more immigration as “shitholes.” For this, the Fake Newsies (but few others) took him to task.
At the same time, most of these left-wing Democrats in the Fake News media and elsewhere are tirelessly complaining about the “white privilege,” “institutional racism,” and “white supremacy” of America, or, as those on the left have not so affectionately referred to it, “AmeriKKKa.”
This latest episode in the Fake News media’s Kill Trump series would have caused more thoughtful, or more honest, people to suffer a massive dose of cognitive dissonance: On the one hand, there has been occurring for many years a mass exodus of millions of non-white people from their home countries from all over the world.  On the other hand, these same people are risking their own lives, yes, but the lives of their children to flee to…a “white supremacist” country.
The “fascists” of AmeriKKKa are intent upon building a wall, true, but to prevent people from, not leaving, but entering, specifically, entering illegally.
A historically white country which remains majority-white and which the American-born left continually derides as “racist” is, in reality, the salvation of the world’s non-white peoples. This, at any rate, can only be the view held by those who are willing to do anything and everything to get to America.
But don’t expect for the Fake News media to say so.
Jack Kerwick [send him mail] received his doctoral degree in philosophy from Temple University. His area of specialization is ethics and political philosophy. He is a professor of philosophy at several colleges and universities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Jack blogs at Beliefnet.com: At the Intersection of Faith & Culture.


Vox Popoli: Darkstream: an Alt-Right response to Jordan Peterson (A False Messiah on Multiculturalism)




Now we're getting fancy, with videos within videos! I also take a series of questions at the end. From the transcript.

For Peterson to say that it is honorable and the least self-deceptive to simply accept the mass invasion of over 100 million people, to address the largest invasion in all of human history by being noble, and individual, and leading a meaningful life, is such obvious nonsense that it almost defies description.

You know I am getting very, very tired of people talking about Peterson as if he's some sort of sage, or prophet, or even a reasonably intelligent man. This guy is a nutcase, this guy is objectively stupid, this guy is an embarrassment to the very concept of an intellectual academic. I mean, imagine if he had given that advice to the people of Poland, imagine that he had given that advice to George Washington, or Cincinnatus, or Julius Caesar, or any other great man of history! Literally every one of any note in history rejected the concept of going down to noble individual defeat. Jesus Christ himself summoned 12 disciples, there is even the Buddha, who rejected,the world and saw it all as maya, illusion, even he had his closest and dearest companions who helped him with his life's work as he pursued his search for nirvana.

So what Peterson is saying is absolute and utter nonsense, and to sum up my response to him, I have a single quote from a man who understood identity politics much better than anyone, and that was this man, the founder of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. He masterfully managed a very difficult situation with a small civic polity that was surrounded and dominated by much larger, more powerful neighbors, and was in a difficult position with different competing religious and ethnic groups, and the way that he addressed identity politics was forthright, it was based on reality, and it was absolutely true.

He said, "in multiracial societies you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion" and that is exactly what we have seen ever since non-Anglo immigrants began entering the United States of America. The Irish voted for what they believed was good for the Irish, the Jews voted for what was good for the Jews, the Catholics did exactly the same thing, and now we're seeing the Muslims do it. Obviously we've been seeing the blacks do it; all these different groups vote in accordance with their race and their religion, and that is not just a response to Jordan Peterson, that is a rebuke and that is a comprehensive rebuttal from a man, who, unlike Jordan
Peterson, actually knows and understands history.

Now I'm going to show you another video because this is going to demonstrate the fact that Jordan Peterson is, intellectually speaking, a joke. The guy is not that intelligent, the guy is totally unable to even deal with a very easy question when it's presented to him by a comedian. This guy is such a joke that he is not even able to deal with a very, very simple question or to stand up and support the rights of free association even though he claims to value the individual.

UPDATE: Sweet Saint Jung, but Peterson fans are remarkably stupid.

I stopped watching Vox for several months due to his constant attacks on Peterson. Vox is correct that Peterson acts like a cuck, but what he doesn't realise is that Peterson uses philosophy and psychology better than anyone to liberate both left and right brainwashed sheep, and as a result stays above politics.

The amazing thing is that these unmitigated morons publicly assert that Peterson is "above politics" while he is literally working for the United Nations and relentlessly pushing its globalist line. One Peterson defender claims Peterson isn't a philosopher and shouldn't be judged by philosophical standards while the next claims he uses philosophy "better than anyone". They are almost as incoherent as their crazy christ-figure himself.

At this point, I consider Marxists, vegans, and gamma nerds to be less delusional than Peterson fans. No wonder they consider being told to clean their rooms to be an earth-shattering new philosophical concept. One hopes that in his next 12 Rules he can tell them to shower more than once every three weeks. Peterson's ground-breaking advice, such as it is, doesn't even rise to the level of Flavor Flav's back in the early 90s.


Vox Popoli: Hey, as long as it's LEGAL - (All people are citizens of America?)


It should be interesting to see what all the conservative morons who have been mindlessly chanting "it's not the IMMIGRATION, it's the ILLEGALITY that is the problem" since the 1980s make of this:

Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Thursday, declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans. “And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

Hey, if you're born American in Nicaragua or Honduras, then obviously you're entitled to live in the USA and collect welfare. Borders are just arbitrary lines on a map, after all, and there is just one race, the human race. And ALL men are created equal, so obviously no one is created a Peruvian or an American, therefore everyone on Earth should be given U.S. citizenship.


How US Policy in Honduras Set the Stage for Today’s Mass Migration – Consortiumnews - By Joseph Nevins

U.S. policy in Honduras, particularly during the Obama administration, is directly responsible for part of the immigration crisis now gripping the U.S., argues Joseph Nevins.
By Joseph Nevins
Central American migrants – particularly unaccompanied minors – are again crossing the U.S.-Mexico boundary in large numbers.
Under the Obama administration In 2014, more than 68,000 unaccompanied Central American children were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico boundary. There were more than 60,000 in 2016.
The mainstream narrative often reduces the causes of migration to factors unfolding in migrants’ home countries. In reality, migration is often a manifestation of a profoundly unequal and exploitative relationship between migrant-sending countries and countries of destination. Understanding this is vital to making immigration policy more effective and ethical.
Through my research on immigration and border policing, I have learned a lot about these dynamics. One example involves relations between Honduras and the United States.
  U.S. Roots of Honduran Emigration
I first visited Honduras in 1987 to do research. As I walked around the city of Comayagua, many thought that I, a white male with short hair in his early 20’s, was a U.S. soldier. This was because hundreds of U.S. soldiers were stationed at the nearby Palmerola Air Base at the time. Until shortly before my arrival, many of them would frequent Comayagua, particularly its “red zone” of female sex workers.

U.S. military presence in Honduras and the roots of Honduran migration to the United States are closely linked. It began in the late 1890s, when U.S.-based banana companies first became active there. As historian Walter LaFeber writes in “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America,” American companies “built railroads, established their own banking systems, and bribed government officials at a dizzying pace.” As a result, the Caribbean coast “became a foreign-controlled enclave that systematically swung the whole of Honduras into a one-crop economy whose wealth was carried off to New Orleans, New York, and later Boston.”
By 1914, U.S. banana interests owned almost 1 million acres of Honduras’ best land. These holdings grew through the 1920s to such an extent that, as LaFeber asserts, Honduran peasants “had no hope of access to their nation’s good soil.” Over a few decades, U.S. capital also came to dominate the country’s banking and mining sectors, a process facilitated by the weak state of Honduras’ domestic business sector. This was coupled with direct U.S. political and military interventions to protect U.S. interests in 1907 and 1911.
Such developments made Honduras’ ruling class dependent on Washington for support. A central component of this ruling class was and remains the Honduran military. By the mid-1960s it had become, in LaFeber’s words, the country’s “most developed political institution,” – one that Washington played a key role in shaping.
The Reagan Era
This was especially the case during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. political and military policy was so influential that many referred to the Central American country as the “U.S.S. Honduras” and the Pentagon Republic.
As part of its effort to overthrow the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua and “roll back” the region’s leftist movements, the Reagan administration “temporarily” stationed several hundred U.S. soldiers in Honduras. Moreover, it trained and sustained Nicaragua’s “contra” rebels on Honduran soil, while greatly increasing military aid and arm sales to the country.
The Reagan years also saw the construction of numerous joint Honduran-U.S. military bases and installations. Such moves greatly strengthened the militarization of Honduran society. In turn, political repression rose. There was a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, “disappearances” and illegal detentions.

The Reagan administration also played a big role in restructuring the Honduran economy. It did so by strongly pushing for internal economic reforms, with a focus on exporting manufactured goods. It also helped deregulate and destabilize the global coffee trade, upon which Honduras heavily depended. These changes made Honduras more amenable to the interests of global capital. They disrupted traditional forms of agriculture and undermined an already weak social safety net.
These decades of U.S. involvement in Honduras set the stage for Honduran emigration to the United States, which began to markedly increase in the 1990s.
In the post-Reagan era, Honduras remained a country scarred by a heavy-handed military, significant human rights abuses and pervasive poverty. Still, liberalizing tendencies of successive governments and grassroots pressure provided openings for democratic forces.
They contributed, for example, to the election of Manuel Zelaya, a liberal reformist, as president in 2006. He led on progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage. He also tried to organize a plebiscite to allow for a constituent assembly to replace the country’s constitution, which had been written during a military government. However, these efforts incurred the ire of the country’s oligarchy, leading to his overthrow by the military in June 2009.
Post-coup Honduras

The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.
Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.
Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base (formerly Palmerola) in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.
Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.”
Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. Impunity reigns in a country with frequent politically-motivated killings. It is the world’s most dangerous country for environmental activists, according to Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization.
Although its once sky-high murder rate has declined, the continuing exodus of many youth demonstrates that violent gangs still plague urban neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, post-coup governments have intensified an increasingly unregulated, “free market” form of capitalism that makes life unworkable for many. Government spending on health and education, for example, has declined in Honduras. Meanwhile, the country’s poverty rate has risen markedly. These contribute to the growing pressures that push many people to migrate, raising ethical questions about the responsibility of the United States toward those now fleeing from the ravages U.S. policy has helped to produce.
This article was originally published on Oct. 31, 2016 on The Conversation.
Joseph Nevins received his Ph.D. in Geography from the University of California, Los Angeles. His research interests include socioterritorial boundaries and mobility, violence and inequality, and political ecology; he has conducted research in East Timor, Mexico and the United States-Mexico border region.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/21/how-us-policy-in-honduras-set-the-stage-for-todays-mass-migration/

Friday, June 22, 2018

Converged - Conspiracy - Co-opted? What is going on?

I admit that several years ago, if you had asked me about the meaning of 'converged', I would not have defined it as anything to do with Social Justice Warriors (SJW). I probably would have used an engineering term.
Well, we have arrived - and I would now bet that your company, church or organization is already converged or well on the way. Our governments, schools and institutions are beyond converged - so what exactly does it mean?
As usual, our archive here comes to the rescue, I word searched CONVERGED - http://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=converged - read at least the first dozen hits and you should be well versed on the subject.
The first 4 posts today are from Vox Day's site - I strongly suggest you plug in to it regularly and stay plugged - and you also might read the comments following his posts, they are often very informative - sometimes strong language!
Finally, Pat Buchanan asks a serious question - do we have the will to survive?
Do we?