Sep 9, 2015

Immigrant Flood Releases Status Competition, Emotional Incontinence, and Hypocrisy among "Liberal" Elites

via The Occidental Observer

The status war has finally broken out in earnest over the Syrian refugees. The first shot was fired by the glamorous blonde Icelandic blogger who offered to adopt a Syrian child and encouraged her countrymen to let out their spare rooms to the refugees. Around 10,000 Icelanders have responded positively to her Facebook campaign and her picture has been seen around the world as a result. Here’s a video of Dutch welcoming refugees with song.

Then the Finnish Prime Minister weighed in with an offer to let out his second house and got plaudits all around for this selfless demonstration. Again the Finns rallied around and the offers have been pouring in.

But now the big rollers have arrived. Sir Bob Geldof says he will put three Syrian families in his rambling country house in Kent and put another one in his London place. The publicity avalanche generated by this has been predictably huge.

It was very generous of Saint Bob but only fair as the humanitarianism business has been so good to him.  Back in 1985 Bob’s pop music career had long fizzled out when he had the bright idea of a record and concert for African famine relief, the big cause at the time.

His business partner remembered that when they first dreamed it up in a greasy spoon café, Bob was so broke he couldn’t pay for his bacon sandwich. Today Geldof is one of the wealthiest men in the British media — thanks to Live Aid. He really did show that you can do well by doing good.

All of which now piles the pressure on Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson. Last week she was enjoying herself hugely chastising her fellow British as “racist” and “shameful” for being reluctant to take in refugees. Now Britain has decided to take in tens of thousands — time to throw open the doors of that huge Hampstead mansion, Emma!

Strangely there is much more enthusiasm for accusing others of racism and shameful behaviour than there is for actually opening up their own houses.

For what the crisis is highlighting is the strength of one of strongest but least acknowledged forces of the age. WEMI — or Western Emotional Incontinence — is a form of narcissism common to prosperous Western countries in which deranged and self-destructive fits of empathy seem to overtake the middle class — and especially the gentle sex.

While not a root cause, WEMI is a massive accelerant to what is happening now. Like atomic fission, WEMI could be harnessed for good causes or wielded for bad ones. Unfortunately our ruling elites seem to know this very well.

It took a commenter on the Steve Sailer blog to put his finger on it and he used the iconic photograph of the dead Kurdish child on the beach.
In Germany, which is being held up as the greatest country in Europe, upwards of 40% of women with advanced degrees have no children. The drowned child was their child, their family is the family of the world. Hence as a result of that photo the prime minister of Finland has announced that he will place his second home at the disposal of Syrian refugees.
Is it too uncharitable to suggest that, amongst left-wing women in particular, this is not fuelled by altruism so much as a combination of attention-seeking, status-enhancement and hatred? Hatred of White men whom they blame for their unhappiness? Hatred of working class White men who, in Britain, are constantly demonized as workshy, benefit-addicted degenerates?

Some men’s rights activists have theorized that a matriarchal society makes women unhappy and they will attempt to open the gates to new, more virile, men as replacements. Perhaps this is cuckoldry on a societal level.

To remember a time when society lost its collective mind in this way British people only have to cast their minds back to the death of Princess Diana when the entire nation’s womenfolk seemed to take leave of their senses. The queues of female mourners, wanting to pay their respects, stretched for miles outside her London home.

Amongst Jews especially there seems little taste for opening their own homes to Muslim immigrants. They don’t like being told what to do. But they seem to have an endless appetite for shaming, nagging, lecturing, preaching and barking out orders about the moral shortcomings of the British while hypocritically ignoring Israel’s response to the crisis. There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees.

One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the UK and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

Failed politician David Miliband chided the British public that they were “betraying their proud history of helping the displaced” — a plea heavily larded with the lachrymose tale of his own family’s wartime struggle to get into Britain. (Miliband now makes a handsome living running a humanitarian aid NGO in New York as consolation for not becoming the Labour leader.)

The Independent was one of the outlets willing to air the hysterical observation from Andrew Stroehlein, media director of Human Rights Watch, that the ghost of the Holocaust was summoned up because the police in Czechoslovakia were numbering the refugees on their arms with pen and ink. Stroehlein’s Twitter feed seems spew out shaming and blaming accusations around the clock.

The Guardian gave Jonathan Sachs space to rehearse the well-worn Kindertransport  story while the paper’s Diplomatic Editor Julian Borger recited the tale of his own family’s wartime flight from Vienna to Britain, the argument being that if his family was ambitious and talented, all refugees must be similarly endowed  and similarly motivated (“Refugees bring hope, not trouble – my father’s story is proof of that“).

And speaking of Kindertransport and the tendency to see the situation as a Jewish allegory, this is from the Jerusalem Post:
With all the questions about how Europe should deal with the Syrian refugee crisis hitting its shores, one Holocaust refugee says that the Syrian refugees should be welcomed in wholeheartedly as he was 77 years ago.
Leslie Baruch Brent, a professor emeritus in immunology, was just a child when his parents sent him to live at a Jewish orphanage in Berlin to escape the unbearable anti-Semitism in the small German town where they lived.
… “We [meaning the British] owe this to mankind to help the unfortunate people who are desperate and whose plight we are to some extent to blame for,” he said in reference to the Iraq War, which he claimed lead to the creation of Islamic State.  …
So far, Brent described the British treatment of the refugee situation as “horrendously negative and selfish” and criticized the way Europe as a whole has handled the situation. “Europe has a responsibility to help refugees,” he said.
Germany’s recent welcoming of Syrian refugees into their country was described by Brent as a shining example of how other countries should handle the situation.
Now with a desperate situation facing refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria, Brent says Europe has a duty to let in the refugees.
In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland led the finger-wagging by telling us that we must resolve to “do better.” Nevertheless, his heart is warmed by housing projects in Sheffield and London that will prioritise refugees over the natives in overcrowded Britain.

On the BBC, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis was interviewed by Political Editor — and fellow Jew —  Laura Kuenssberg. They agreed that White countries must do much more share the wealth with the Muslims. Mirvis discussed the crisis with Pope Francis who has very generously agreed to accept two (2) refugee families at Vatican parishes.
The Pope said: ‘We all share this world together, therefore we need to care for this world together. We need to recognise that the plight of the refugees is not only their problem, it’s also our problem, these are real people.That’s why the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw the picture was, God forbid, it could have been a child of mine, a child of yours, anybody’s child.
But for sheer gall it is difficult to beat Jewish journalist Ronald Brabazon from the Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper in Austria. Rather than making a Julian Borger-type claim based on the success of his own family, he claimed that immigration was proven to produce economic success because of the success of 750,000 Russian refugees who arrived in Israel. Of course, he omitted to say that these were Jews arriving in a Jewish society.

What everyone was too polite to mention was that Israel was taking in no refugees at all. The country is too small, says Netanyahu (although it wasn’t too small to admit the aforesaid 750,000 Jewish refugees). And in any case they are busy exporting their African “infiltrators” to Sweden and building a wall to keep Syrian refugees out.

It’s not just Israel’s behavior that is getting no coverage. What is not being asked is one of the most amazing aspects of the story so far — astonishing given the saturation-coverage.  Everywhere you looked, the refugee narrative fell apart. Many of the Syrian refugees are not Syrian and aren’t even refugees. There is the disconnect between the pictures of the strapping, healthy looking young men and rhetoric about traumatized women and children who are nowhere to be seen.

The iconic picture of the dead child on the beach?  The Kurdish parents were not in a war zone and had been living in a safe area for three years before their reckless decision to take to sea. But this is hardly mentioned apart from obscure reports like this one entitled “We are being taken for fools.”

And then there is the selective amnesia about the elderly Italian couple who had their throats slit by two Black refugees after arriving by boat from Libya. And how two asylum seekers were arrested after a mother and her son were stabbed to death in IKEA of all places.

And has it not struck you how well televised and photographed an event it is.  Even the arrival of migrants to a rapturous applause in Germany seemed to be choreographed. The refugees even managed to co-ordinate chants for the benefit of the cameras? In several languages? Has it not struck you how slick this all is?

Will we discover that this is about as “spontaneous” as the colour revolutions that spread across Eastern Europe and turned out to be largely organised by Western security sources and such selfless individuals as George Soros?

Perhaps people were not asking difficult questions because they are too intoxicated with their own self-righteousness. They are too busy feeling good about themselves — and chastising others.

A Christian Nationalist Response to the Current European Migrant Crisis

via Faith & Heritage

Chaos at Budapest-Keleti Train Station, Hungary
In what has been described as Europe’s greatest migrant crisis since World War II, the twenty-eight member states of the European Union are currently seeing 3,500 people cross its borders illegally every single day from primarily Middle Eastern and African countries. Scenes from Budapest (Keleti) train station in Hungary highlight the intensity of the problem Europe is currently facing and its urgent need to be immediately addressed.

Social justice and anti-racism warriors across the continent, are, of course welcoming the migrants with open arms, some even offering to take them into their homes.

At the very least, one has to credit the mainstream media for, to some extent, recognizing this mass process of migration of virtually entire peoples from the third to the first world as some sort of crisis. Notwithstanding, the mainstream narrative on the issue portrayed by the leftist media simply refuses to acknowledge the true dynamics and implications of the problem. In fact, it is a fantasy of almost fairy-tale-like proportions. Read, for example, this excerpt from a BBC report from 3 September, entitled “Migrant crisis: Photo of drowned boy sparks outcry“:
At least 12 Syrians trying to reach Greece have drowned off Turkey after the boats they were travelling in sank.
An image of one of the victims – a young boy lying face down on the beach – has sparked an international outcry over the human cost of the crisis. . . .
The picture, released by a Turkish news agency, is trending worldwide on Twitter under the #KiyiyaVuranInsanlik (“humanity washed ashore”) hashtag.
The pictured boy is reported to be three-year-old Aylan, who drowned along with his five-year-old brother Galip and their mother, Rihan. Their father, Abdullah Kurdi, survived.
He and his family reportedly sought asylum in Canada before attempting the journey – but their refugee application was turned down. . . .
Despite the reaction to the image online, there has been little reaction from European leaders.
This story about the drowned boy has been sentimentally used by news media all over Europe to highlight the “inhumanity” of the migrant crisis. Of course, sentimentalism is thereby used to further enforce the cultural Marxist and open-borders agenda upon Western Christian nations. A further example is the countless media articles reporting that these third-world aliens enter into Germany shouting “Thank you, Germany! We love you, Germany!” as they enter the country.

To be fair, many (if not most) of the average leftist social justice warriors you’ll find out on the street have been “educated” to not conceptualize anything in terms of an actions-have-consequences paradigm, so for their part the sentimentalist narrative basically entails that the institutionalized injustices caused by “white privilege” necessitate that Europeans take in as many immigrants as possible so that the fruits of “white privilege” can be more equally divided. Of course, we all know that “white privilege” as some kind of abstract inexplicable sociohistorical mechanism in which white people magically, without any apparent reason or explanation (remember: race doesn’t really exist!), managed to unjustly oppress all nonwhites, is a myth. White privilege, of course. does exist in the sense that whites are genetically, culturally, and historically, in many regards, more blessed by God than other races. But for the Christian, opposing this as unjust would amount not only to ungratefulness to the Giver of all good gifts, but also to blasphemy in seeking the re-creation of a “superior” social and created order than that provided by the most wise God. Opposing any kind of true, unobjectionable white privilege consequently amounts to the assertion of one’s own sovereignty over the sovereignty of God.

It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the little boy’s family, lament the heartbreaking suffocation of numerous fleeing refugees, or sorrow for the tragic deaths of more than 2,000 aliens attempting to enter Europe this year alone; these most certainly amount to tragic losses. In fact, I would counter that the mainstream leftist paradigm isn’t doing these people any good. All of these migrant deaths are, rather, all part of a much bigger problem – one that the media and politicians simply refuse to acknowledge because of their politically correct agenda, which is ultimately to destroy Western Civilization.

Some leftist commentators even blame the historical cultural influence of Christianity for the so-called “lack of sympathy” by Europeans for the migrants. Apparently, peacefully going about your daily business trying to make the best of your life while Africans and Middle Easterners are overrunning your nation and destroying your culture is just not good enough – one has a moral obligation to suicidally support the process.

Perhaps even more discouraging, however, are the responses of many European Christians who have managed to nearly equal the idiocy of their leftist counterparts. Pope Francis has come out saying that Europeans resisting mass immigration are sinning against God. In Germany, Marxist “Protestants” are abusing German cultural tradition of “church sanctuary” in order to harbor criminals. Similarly in the Netherlands, the largest Protestant Church has opened the doors of its empty church buildings for the same purpose.1 Even Reformed theologians from “conservative” denominations have come out and basically said that the Bible speaks nothing against mass immigration as such and merely teaches Christians to treat immigrants with niceness.2

You’d expect the enemies of Christendom to advocate for policies that destroy Western Civilization. At the very least you can expect that, albeit with skillful deception at times, they advocate policies consistent with their own agenda. However, when you hear Christians merely echoing these Marxist sentiments, only sugarcoating it with a few references to “Jesus,” a righteous anger should rightfully flare up inside of every godly believer in biblical law. It is therefore my calling, in obedience to God, to refute this Marxist position masquerading under the guise of Christianity.

First of all, when these “conservative” theologians claim that Scripture doesn’t speak explicitly to the issue of “mass immigration,” they are correct in a sense. They err when they deduce from this that Scripture provides  no weighty moral directives on the issue. This is, coming from educated theologians, an outright lie. Scripture does not speak to the issue of “mass immigration” because Scripture does not categorically recognize the concept. Scripture correctly recognizes that what is currently happening to Europe – and what has effectively been happening since World War II – is a foreign invasion. It also clearly recognizes a foreign invasion to be a form of judgment upon an apostate people (Isa. 5:24-30). That this biblical analysis of the matter at hand is indeed correct is further evidenced by the fact that what the invaders are currently doing in Europe is exactly what inferior pagan foreign invaders did to superior cultures throughout all ages: they pillage resources, murder, rape, seize political power, and take ownership of the land.

French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen is certainly right in identifying that Western military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa, supported by both leftist and neoconservative governments, has destabilized these regions. Our godless governments’ support of unjust wars is certainly catching up to us in more ways than one. This is one of the sins of the West – handing over the political power in our own countries to Zionists, who base their entire foreign policy on supporting and expanding the power of the state of Israel. In fact, it may well be that the US/NATO-led destabilization of Libya in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime did it, in part, to open the floodgates from North Africa into Europe. Ironically, however, one of the countries that is least guilty of Middle Eastern and Central/North African destabilization, Hungary, is currently suffering the most under this foreign invasion. Furthermore, Hungary is also one of the few remaining European nations that can still in many regards be legitimately classified as Christian.

In fact, amid the current crisis, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has reiterated his long-held position that the influx of these hundreds of thousands of foreigners from countries so radically culturally and religiously distinct from Europe is threatening the Christian culture and values of European and Hungarian society. Thankfully for Hungary, though, it seems as though most aliens’ intention are only to use the country as a pathway to Germany.

A biblical, Christian response to this chaos would acknowledge the element of divine judgment in the foreign invasion that Europe is currently suffering. Nonetheless, as Christians, we don’t believe in karma, and although we can certainly grant that there is a sense in which godless Europe is getting what it deserves, we can in no way support this foreign invasion of white countries; we are called to defend our people’s existence. After all, as Rev. Bret McAtee points out: “[D]ead people don’t repent. And so while our mad border-less immigration pursuit is only a symptom of a far greater disease it is a symptom that must be dealt with now so that the patient lives long enough to be cured of the disease.” McAtee writes for the American context, but this is certainly true for Europe as well. Prime Minister Orban also recognizes that Christianity in Europe is under pressure as it is, and accepting even more immigrants will only make the situation for the church increasingly difficult.

As Christians, we have to start by rejecting and refuting the Marxist narrative of the history of Western Christendom as one written by our enemies for the purpose of destroying our great civilization. Whereas the Marxist sees the white man as the ever-oppressing source of all the evil of the world, Christians need to counter with a covenantal conception of our own history, recognizing the divine guidance of God’s Spirit in establishing His church among the white nations of the world and providentially using us to establish His Kingdom on earth. Hilaire Belloc famously stated, “The faith is Europe. And Europe is the faith.”3 Despite the suicidal tenets of so many contemporary Dutch Reformed thinkers, this wasn’t always the case. In a speech from 1867, the Dutch Reformed political theorist Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer argues explicitly against the mass assimilation of peoples through immigration and intermarriage, as already advocated at that time by the Communist Manifesto:
You know, profound philosophers, wise politicians, benefactors of modern Europe, what you get if you would reach your utopia? Then you get, if you can call it that, colorless ‘nations’ without a backbone, communities, crowds, masses, conglomerations of individuals, a collections of atoms, then you get dust that becomes mud. . . . As Vinet put it, ‘rebels today, slaves tomorrow.’ Then you get with your unity of . . . language and race, those kinds of races which de Tocqueville had said in his admirable writings: breeds as docile as sheep, with shepherds leading them to the fold or to the butcher; shepherds letting them graze in the pastures of ungodliness and sin, finally condemning them to be massacred on the battlefields.4
These prophetic words regarding the destruction of Western Christendom through the neo-Babelist agenda, which creates one world mass without true national identity or fidelity, is even truer today than it was in Groen’s own time. We must realize that these sentimental examples of suffering migrants elevated by the media are done not from genuine concern, but with the agenda of destroying Christendom. This current crisis is all part of a greater anti-white and anti-Christian scheme. The same powers which destabilize fairly stable Middle Eastern countries also sentimentally call for Europe’s gates to be cast wide open to resolve this artificial chaos. As many of these aliens are radical jihadists, cultural Marxists then justify the intensified imposition of their forceful sodomite and feminist propaganda on everyone in European countries, further destroying whatever is left of traditional Christianity, all to battle a problem of radicalism that they themselves created. The hypocrisy of these Western leaders should be sufficient to expose their agenda: when they, through military intervention, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East and North Africa in order to establish “democratic regimes,” i.e. regimes that are more pro-Israel, then the loss of these innocent lives don’t bother the mainstream thought-leaders too much. Yet, when a little boy drowns in the Mediterranean Sea due to the irresponsible (and illegal!) actions of his parents – who, by the way, should receive primary blame for this tragedy – then suddenly the narrative switches completely.

A superior alternative course of action amid the current crisis, which numerous Christians are now proposing, is to grant asylum only to those Christian Arab and African refugees fleeing persecution for their faith, such as recently proposed by the government of Slovakia. While I respect such an attempt at Christian solidarity, there are a few flaws in this argument that need to be exposed. First of all, while it is indeed noble to provide refuge for all who seek it in our house (be it domestic or national), biblically, refuge is understood to be a very temporary situation, with the guest moving on in due time (I Sam. 22:3; Ruth. 1:1-6; Matt. 2:13-14; Acts 28:30). Thus, while this noble and biblical practice can and should be promoted among Christians and be more fervently practiced, it is ultimately not applicable to the current crisis of mass migrations into Europe. Nowhere in Scripture would one find a godly example of a family, tribe, or nation willingly sacrificing the inheritance of their progeny for the sake of global humanitarianism, which is exactly the judgment under which Europe is currently suffering. In fact, sacrificing your children’s tribal and/or national inheritance for the sake of the well-being of foreigners, even if it were to be from a genuine concern, is expressly prohibited by biblical law, which indicates that such a concern is man-centered, unwise, misplaced, self-destructive (i.e. a violation of both the fifth and sixth commandments), and therefore sinful.

Furthermore, what goes unmentioned in the media is that even despite the chaos in Africa and the Middle East, many safehavens remain within these regions, making it utterly unnecessary for Arabic and African people to flood Europe. Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates are examples of Arabic countries with sizable Christian minorities and relative sociopolitical stability even amid the current crisis in the Middle East – yet these countries comparatively take in very few refugees. Even Israel, that glorified democracy and “only ally” of America in the Middle East, would make a great refuge. But as has been the case with both Syria and Libya, the powers that occupy the West seem hellbent on destabilizing all safehavens for persecuted Christians in Africa and the Middle East, with South Sudan being the most recent example.

If true European traditionalist Christians want to end this ongoing crisis, the solution ultimately is to avoid the mere symptom-treatment advocated by the humanists, which would only further incite the dangerous process of migration, leading to more and more migrant casualties and the eventual genocide of European peoples and culture. The ideological root of the problem needs to be addressed if any kind of sustainable solutions are to be found. Ironically, there are two remarkably simple policy-changes that could be implemented with much more ease than any of the permissible and politically-correct alternatives currently proposed in the mainstream: 1) the current suicidal immigration policy needs to be forsaken in favor of a biblical model of ethnonationalism, and 2) the imperialist interventionist foreign policy needs to be replaced by the biblical golden rule. We should do as little as possible to cause this tragic political instability, and given our current situation, any refuges should be provided within a safe distance and of a temporary nature for the refugees, such that the national integrity of the host nations is not compromised. If the situation is genuinely so extreme that Syrians cannot reasonably remain within their home country, then nearby nations should be impressed with the obligation to provide some sort of asylum for them, both for the good of the traveling migrants and for the relative cultural and ethnic homogeneity which that would provide. Yet none of this is applicable to the current proposed solutions, as immigrants are invited to travel thousands of miles with small children in order to fully assimilate into a vastly foreign people and culture for an indefinite duration, with no regard given to the well-being of the European hosts. While the provision of asylum for foreign refugees is not itself contrary to biblical ethnonationalism, any disproportionate manner, degree, or duration of refugee-incorporation is – and modern Europeans, with the exception of Hungary and perhaps others, are failing to provide any weight whatever to this crucial biblical principle.

Additionally, the white European people on the ground desperately need to start having more children, in obedience to the very first divine command (Gen.1:28) – which would include fighting for the criminalization of abortion – lest they should have an equally large contribution to their own genocide as their hypocritical political overlords. Ultimately, the message of the great Old Testament prophets to the people of Israel remains every bit as relevant for the people of Europe today: “Repent and live!”
 

Notes:

  1. http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/4117845/pkn-wil-opvang-vluchtelingen-in-leegstaande-kerken.html – note: article is in Dutch
  2. http://www.refdag.nl/opinie/bijbel_en_vreemdelingenbeleid_1_932825 – note: article is in Dutch
  3. Conclusion, Europe and the Faith (1920)
  4. Speech entitled De religieuze nationaliteit met betrekking tot NEDERLAND en De EVANGELISCHE ALLIANTIE. Amsterdam, 22 August 1867. My own translation from the original Dutch.

European Refugee Crisis as "Blowback?"

via Radix

Gilad Atzmon:
Yesterday Germany turned on Britain over the migrant crisis. Germany expects to accept 800,000 asylum seekers by the end of the year. Britain is also preparing for the growing refugee disaster -- It closed its gates. The German call makes some sense I must admit. After all, it was Tony Blair and his Labour Government that launched the criminal war that led to this global humanitarian crisis. But Blair wasn’t alone. In fact he was merely a Sabbos Goy.
When Blair took Britain into Iraq his chief fundraises were Lord cash point Levy of the Labour Friends Of Israel. Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohenwere the prime advocates for the immoral interventionist wars in the British media and beyond. Since then, we have seen the Jewish lobby openly pushing for more and more wars (Syria, Iran, Libya etc.). In France it was the CRIF and Bernard Henri Levy that pushed for the intervention in Libya that has turned the Mediterranean Sea into a death trap.
I don’t know how many refugees Lord Levy, Bernard Henri Levy and David Aaronovitch can fit into their spare rooms. But I do believe that the Jewish community should immediately place itself at the forefront of any humanitarian effort for the refugees. First because Jews claim to know more than anyone else about suffering. But mainly because it was Jewish aggressive politics and Zionist global lobbying that brought this colossal refugee crisis about.

Disney Cast Member: How They Replaced Americans with Cheap Foreigners on H1B Visas

via American Freedom Party

As a patriotic and proud citizen of the United States, I have a story to share that has not only impacted my family, hundreds of colleagues, but also current and future United States workers.

I used to have a dream career at one of Americas most iconic and admired companies. Twenty years of hard work, technical skill building, the fostering of relationships and a bachelor’s degree in Information Technology guided me to a coveted position as an Information Technology Engineer for Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

On a sunny Monday morning in late October of 2014 I drove down the interstate toward the huge 40 square mile Disney Orlando, Florida property to my office. Ten days earlier Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, had just announced that the company’s earnings were up well over 20 percent for the quarter and this was just one among a long series of record breaking financial results for the company. About six months earlier, a new CIO, Tilak Mandadi, was appointed for the Parks and Resorts Division of Disney, which would result in huge changes to our lives. Little did I know what was about to happen that very same day to me and hundreds of other fellow Disney Information Technology Cast Members.

Days later, as I drove to work, I ran into a bit of slow traffic and so I was able to glance at my company issued iPhone I noticed an early morning meeting invite from a prominent Disney Executive. This really sparked my interest since it is not very often that I have heard from him and even rarer when I would actually see him in person. Despite the heavy traffic I estimated that I would be on time for the important meeting. As I continued down the road I wondered what the executive meeting could be all about.

About ten minutes later in my commute the phone rang and it was a fellow Disney “Cast Member” as employees were called. We worked together the prior week when we solved a major outage situation for the application that we both helped to support. He reminded me about another meeting that we had later that same day. Since I knew that he was just about the highest level on his team, was well respected and also that he was very well connected within the Disney Parks & Resorts Organization, I asked him if he knew anything about this last minute early morning meeting being hosted by the Disney Executive. He told me that he was not sure about the subject of the meeting. However, he told me that since I had such a great reputation as a problem solver, had just cleared up a major outage situation the week prior and since I recently received the very highest possible performance review by management, that the meeting must be one to recognize my recent contributions to the company with perhaps a promotion or at the very least a bonus.

After arriving at the Orlando office, I walked into the conference room where the early morning meeting was to be held. As I entered about two dozen people were crowded into the room. Some were from same team; others were from different teams. As I glanced around the room I noticed that the people were all very highly regarded as extremely knowledgeable, experienced and top performers in the roles that they held. Some of the attendees also had a Blue Disney name badge instead of the typical white one proudly displayed on the shirts they wore. The Blue badge indicated that they were recognized by a new program known as “Partners in Excellence.” This meant that they had been nominated by numerous people as consistently going above and beyond to assist other Cast Members. I could sense that something was not quite right. There was a chill in the air and yet, oddly enough, I was in a room surrounded by employees of excellence.

As I watched the grim faced Disney Executive, it was obvious that bad news was going to be delivered. The dead silence was broken when the Disney Executive made a harsh announcement. All of you in this room will be losing your jobs in the next 90 days. Your last day of employment for this company will be January 30, 2015. Your jobs have been given over to a foreign workforce. In the meantime you will be training your replacements until your jobs are 100 percent transferred over to them and if you don’t cooperate you will not receive any severance pay. Also, if we don’t feel confident that we have captured everything that you do we can, at our discretion, keep you longer than the 90 days until we have captured everything that you do with this job. Don’t discuss this meeting with anybody else in the company. Everybody in the room was appalled at the message. I was completely silent thinking how this was going to affect my coworkers and how I was going to break the news to my wife and children back at home as I was the only person in my home with a steady job. How would I pay for all the expenses that go along with a home, a wife, and children?

As of January 31, 2015, I would be living on unemployment payments. Health care, along with other employee benefits, would be gone. The good life was soon to vanish as soon as the foreign workers took over my job. The sleepless nights were just starting for me as I felt the pressure of providing for my family with food, shelter, utilities, autos, health insurance, and child day care. My coworkers and I felt extremely betrayed by Walt Disney World, a company for which we had worked so hard.

After having worked grueling on call shifts, hundreds of middle of the night and weekends work sessions in addition to a barrage of problem phone calls around the clock for many years, they were going to simply throw us out for their financial benefit. One glimmer of hope from the Disney executive was that many new Disney jobs were going to be created and these jobs would not be as dull and repetitive as our current jobs were and that no net loss of jobs was going to happen. Disney Cast Members who had survived and were not invited to this doomful meeting wondered what happened inside the closed door meeting. Some of those in the meeting had tears streaming down their faces, others had completely broken down and were crying out loud and one was murmuring “no, this can’t be” as they were marched out of the room.

The very next week our office environment started to change dramatically. A huge influx of foreign workers from South Asia started to arrive at numerous buildings on the Disney Orlando campus in very large numbers. A foreign language was suddenly being spoken throughout the building hallways. Everywhere I went, including the company cafeteria, the composition of the company changed so much in the period of only a week.

The first 30 days was focused on capturing all that I did with my job. We started getting mandatory meeting invitations for “KT” or “Knowledge Transfer” sessions showing on our calendars. The daily sessions involved us training our foreign replacements for several hours. We all felt humiliated when the foreign workers sat next to us and watched everything that we did.

Presumably at the direction of the Disney Executives, the foreign workers insisted that they record all the audio as well as everything that we did on our computer screens with recorded video during the training meetings. We were then astonished as everything that we did on our job was documented and read right back to us for further critiquing. By then, it was a slow and methodical process that went on day in and day out. In hopes of landing a new Disney job we watched the Disney internal job postings and noticed a number of the vague job descriptions. Our frustration started to grow as we applied for the jobs yet none of us were contacted in any fashion. Those of us losing our jobs started to wonder if these new job postings really even existed.

The next 30 days had us working side by side with our replacement workers doing part of our job while the “KT” sessions continued. The daily disgrace continued when the foreign workers started assuming our responsibilities. They referred constantly back to all the audio, video and documentation that they had previously captured from us and asked that we explain the same questions repeatedly. They were obviously much younger, less skilled and less experienced.

The last 30 days were the most disgraceful and demoralizing of this entire period as I had to watch a foreign worker completely take over my job. I had no work to do during the last 30 days other than watch a foreign worker completely take over everything that I did in my job. One ironic twist was that I actually received a significant pay raise during my last 30 days with the company because I had received the highest possible job rating in performance reviews. The new Disney job postings only resulted in three coworkers getting new positions from the over three hundred IT workers. I was not one of them. The last day we turned in our mobile phones, laptops, ID badges along with our dignity and we were ushered out the door as temporary foreign workers took over our jobs.

Since leaving Disney we have also been informed by several large IT recruiting firms that Disney has a policy in place that states all displaced Disney IT Cast Members will not even be considered as contractor workers for 12 months. Thus we have been essentially shut out and black listed by the largest employer in this very small Orlando job market.

I largely perceive a job loss as a loss of my own identity. The humiliation of accepting unemployment payments after working for the same company for over ten years in different capacities has been extremely demoralizing. I felt guilty and frequently wondered if I was being a faithful and good American by training these foreign workers to take over our American jobs just so that I could receive a small severance package and unemployment benefits for four months.

How do I explain to my young children to follow their dreams and find a job that they love? I followed my dream of having a career in technology which I loved at the time, studied technology in college earning a bachelors degree, received numerous continuing education technical certifications, built a large base of real world experience, had a tremendous work ethic and was recognized with the very highest possible performance review by my company to have my very same desk, chair and computer all taken over by a foreign worker who was just flown in to America weeks before.

I frequently question if the IT field holds much future for United States’ citizens or U.S. permanent residents. Should I continue to dodge bullets or move into an entirely new field after having been outsourced on multiple occasions by the same company and then finally physical replaced by a foreign worker? I would never recommend the IT field to my own children or anybody else that I know for that matter, due to the lack of job opportunities even for someone passionate about the IT field. We now have American IT workers being displaced by both H1-B visa holders, who are physically being flown in from foreign countries, as well as the continued use of foreign remote offshore workers. We are seeing a massive drain on job opportunities here on our own soil. What does the future hold for United States’ workers? This outsourcing must be stopped or America will certainly decline.

How can our lawmakers allow this to happen to our country? This abuse of the H1-B Visa is not about a lack of talent here in the U.S. If our own pool of IT professionals were so incompetent- then why would companies like Disney have us train our replacements and spend months teaching them? Albeit, the loss of my position and hundreds of other positions here in Orlando, Florida is personal and debilitating, the nationwide loss of opportunity for high wage technology professionals will have a far reaching impact on our country.

Is the answer really to displace American workers, thus lessening the taxable income and opportunity for these citizens to be productive assets to our society? It is very clear that the H1-B visa is about cutting wages and exploiting immigration guest workers programs at less pay.

I challenge policy makers to ask themselves- what is the ripple effect of this program to our country? The proposed new bill, “I-Squared”, introduced by Senators Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), will triple the number of foreign H1-B guest workers increasing this problem threefold. I challenge them to read this story and think about the thousands or more workers just like us at Disney who will lose their jobs.

Finally, all employees who have been displaced by a foreign worker, whether the foreign worker is located in, or outside of, the United States territory, need to stand up for their rights and for the rights of all American citizen workers. Similarly, any American citizen or permanent resident who applied for a job but was denied the position because it was filled by an immigration visa employee should determine if that denial of the position was a violation of his/her rights. I implore displaced employees and employees denied positions to visit the following website for options in taking a stand and possibly recovering for the potential violation of his/her constitutional rights. If you feel that you are powerless in the face of this tsunami think again.

Angela Merkel: A Bad Ad for Feminism

via Alternative Right

Turning Germany into a pigsty?
With the chaos caused by the European migrant crisis invasion of Europe, there is one narrative that is not getting much attention at the moment even though it lies at the heart of what is happening: this is the question of female leaders and what that can mean for a country.

Nowadays, when the US marines are lowering standards so that women can "serve" in the front line (and thus speeding the day when wars are entirely fought by drones), we are all supposed to be gender blind and not notice whether this or that position is occupied by a woman, unless of course they are blaming their failures on "sexism" or invisible sex-selective carapaces that limit their otherwise inevitable upper movement. But, no matter how hard leftists try, gender is not about to go away, and at the highest political level it is worth considering how it impacts on events.

Earlier this year, Germany, under its fraulein Fuhrer, got something of a reputation of being a stickler for the rules and for sticking to its guns. That was of course in relation to the Greek debt negotiations. We were told that debts were debts, rules were rules, and that, while we might want to show a little compassion to the prodigal Greeks, it wasn’t good for them, so we mustn’t, in the same way that we mustn’t give kids sweets before bedtime.

But fast-forward a few months and its quite a different story. The hard-faced Germans who stared down the recalcitrant Greeks and made their Leftist poster boy toe the Euro debt line, have suddenly melted into emotional mush, simply because a few thousand Syrian migrants showed up with big brown dog eyes begging for hand outs.

One reason that this happened has a lot to do with the woman running Germany. As Colin Liddell points out, Merkel is a childless woman who seems to have fixed on the Syrians as substitute children. Perhaps the key moment was back in July, shortly after she had ripped the Greeks a new debt A-hole. Back in those days, Merkel was the prim and proper, ever so efficient advertisement for feminism that the world had come to expect, showing the world that – whaddya know! – lady politicians rock.

With 2015 even then being a bumper year for asylum applications, Merkel decided to make a show of the rules being the rules, while also throwing in a little EQ (emotional intelligence) to highlight the supposed advantages of the female politician over the glib male of the species. Rather than just anonymously deporting the latest batch of failed asylum seekers, she decided to take the opportunity to put some faces to the procedure by appearing on a cosy televised chat with some of them. Big mistake!

After hearing the usual sob stories that hardened immigration officers use to line their budgie cages with, Merkel started to wobble with one young, starry-eyed, Palestinian "dreamer," called Reem. Merkel tried to stick to the script, saying, “politics is sometimes hard. You’re right in front of me now and you’re an extremely nice person. But you also know in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon are thousands and thousands and if we were to say you can all come ... we just can’t manage it.”


The girl promptly burst into tears, whereupon "the Merk" lunged in to rub her on the shoulder with a show of Teutonic affection, as her flaccid jowls wobbled with a hint of emotion.

She left that event intact, still seeming like the no-nonsense pant-suited politician that Germans like to think is responsibly steering their ship of state. But one suspects that her somnolent maternal feelings had received an almighty kick from young Reem's tears and were slowly awakening from their slumber to a pointless existence in her desiccated body, reducing her to a soft touch for any individual or group mining the psychological repertory of dependency signals.

Feminists claim that women make just as good, if not better, leaders than men, but to be a good leader means, first, not to have too many emotions, and secondly to control those that you do have. Merkel seems to have lost the plot in both cases. Being in power means that you will inevitably be subjected to all kinds of dependency signalling from those beneath you, and it will be most powrful from those at the bottom. It is no exaggeration to say that the female psychology, which is hard-wired to nurture and dote on weakness, may have something of a weak spot here.

'Mother' Merkel’s recent bout of maternal madness in trashing German's defences is the perfect example of the dangers of voting in female leaders. Margaret Thatcher, as Britain’s first women Prime Minister, was always on her guard against this very tendency even though she had got it out of her system to some extent by raising a couple of kids. But even here, her determination not to be seen as a weak and emotional woman made her swing too far the other way, coming across as the most callous and insensitive politician in British political history.

These are the twin dangers that having a female leader involve – either turning into a big ball of easily manipulated emotional mush, or else becoming a tactless and toneless harpy bent on proving that she is just as tough as the men.

Europe Accepts Flood of Immigrants while Israel Arrests, Deports Them

via The Realist Report

Europe is literally being destroyed right before our very eyes, and European leaders, Jewish activists, and millions of European citizens are endorsing and facilitating it. It’s absolute madness.

Of course, Jews in the West are advocating Europeans welcome millions of non-White alien invaders masquerading as “refugees” and “asylum seekers” while Israel is doing everything it can to lock down its border and identify, arrest, and expel illegal aliens.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency recently reported:
With hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring across the borders of the European Union, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a landmark change in policy last month: Germany would begin to accept Syrian refugees, no matter how they got there.
Four days later, Israeli Interior Minister Silvan Shalom made a statement on the same topic, but with a different tone: Israel would do everything possible, he said, to remove migrants from its borders.
“I continue to fight, with all my effort, against the phenomenon of illegal infiltration, in light of the hundreds of thousands of infiltrators to Europe in these days and hours,” Shalom wrote Aug. 28 on Facebook, using the government’s term for migrants. “I will not relent until we reach a framework that will allow the removal of the infiltrators from Israel.” […]
I encourage everyone to read the entire article to get a better understanding of the double standards on display here. It’s truly appalling.

I really have to wonder how much longer the Jews can continue with these outrageous double standards, not to mention their blatant hypocrisy, when it comes to immigration, multiculturalism, and ethnic identity and nationalism. It’s always one things for Jews, and quite another for the White Western (formerly) Christian world.

The West is supposed to accept millions of non-White alien invaders, welcoming them as brothers and sisters into their own lands, dishing out billions of dollars to provide for their well-being. Meanwhile, over in Israel, the Jews are literally locking down their border and openly announcing: “Refugees and non-Jewish immigrants are not welcome.”

As Lawrence Murray, the always insightful analyst and political commentator who maintains Atlantic Centurion and contributes regularly to The Right Stuff, recently outlined, there are very sensible and easily implementable solutions to the crisis currently unfolding in Europe (and America for that matter). For some reason, I doubt the bureaucrats in Brussels and other major European capitals, save Hungry, will take the advice.

And it’s a shame – we are witnessing the potential total destruction of Europe and America right before our eyes, and yet we could easily solve this problem in a matter of weeks if we had the political courage to do so.

Revenge of the Rest against the West

via Henry Dampier

Having ascended to the height of the world for some brief thousands of years (with a long, muddling interlude in the middle), the West finds itself on the back foot against its more numerous competitors. None of this is especially concealed: the only confusing part about it is that a large portion of the people who might otherwise be charged with perpetuating the civilization have arrayed themselves against it, often barely understanding, themselves, what it is that they are tearing down.

The America of the next generation will be completely unrecognizable from that of the current one, and that of the previous one. The same goes for Europe. Many of the distinctive qualities that make the West different will be diminished or enveloped by the surrounding factions looking for pieces of the former territories. To the extent that any of it survives will be the extent to which the people separate themselves out and survive within separate countries.

In some ways, we can also see this as an unforeseen consequence of technological progress, particularly in the field of weapons. The West kept climbing until it developed weapons which were so powerful that no leader wanted to risk using them. The typical correction mechanism for misgovernment is war — both civil and international, in the same way that bankruptcy clears out uneconomic firms from the marketplace. With war between Western states becoming mostly unfeasible, it became possible for thoroughly insane governments to take over enormous portions of the globe, with their growth only being checked in a limited fashion by economic failure.

In reflection, a good retort to the anti-war-slogan-question “War, what is it good for?” is “putting tyrannical governments into smoke.”

The growth in the market economy also fueled growth of bureaucratic states to levels which would have been impossible in leaner times.

In a spasmodic mixture of envy and self-loathing, the West is tearing itself down, replacing it with something that few have much of a motivation to sustain and grow. Even the people charged with paying the enormous social-security-and-medical-care bills show little love for the ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’ societies that they are inheriting, and I really can’t blame them for that.

There is an alternative, put forth by Lawrence Auster (whom I’ve been linking to often over the last couple weeks), which may or may not prove feasible:
If genuine reforms are thought to be impossible because of opposition by minority groups, I would like the reader to consider how much more difficult all political decisions are going to be in the future when every issue will have to pass a minefield of ethnic and racial blocs. That is why it is vital that we act now while there is still time—if there is still time.
Action requires that the great mass of Americans, whatever their color, who care for this civilization and want it to be pre­served, make their voices heard in a bloc, in the same way that highly motivated minority groups act when their interests are at stake.
It is not enough merely to express concerns about immigration. People are doing that all the time, and it accom­plishes little in the way of waking the nation up from its hypnotic passivity on this issue. On the contrary, the mere venting of anxieties and resentments only strengthens the open-borders orthodoxy by enabling it to dismiss all those who are concerned about immigration as xenophobes. It is time, rather, for the American people to legitimize the idea of meaningful immigration re­form and then to enact fair and substantive changes in the law along the lines I have suggested here. All that is lacking, as the result of a quarter-century of orchestrated guilt, is the conviction that it is morally right—and the will to do it. In any case, something must be done, and soon. The disdain felt by many Americans today for the 1920s nativists, for restricting immigration too tightly, will be nothing compared with the curses that future generations of Americans, mired in a divided and decaying society, will pile on our heads for erring too far in the opposite direction.
The immigration issue is more important than smaller political issues because a completely foreign people will create a completely foreign nation — one more similar to that of the third world than the country which we inherited.

Donald Trump, Immigration, and Leftist Histrionics

via Occident Invicta

It looks like Al Jazeera, my favorite site to mine for leftist nonsense, continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. One of their more extreme polemicists, Malcolm Harris, recently claimed that Donald Trump’s strict immigration laws could spark a civil war. His latest article is so absurd that even the majority of Al Jazeera’s commenters have rightly pilloried his fatuous logic. This warrants yet another thorough deconstruction. He actually begins by conceding one of Trump’s arguments, only to later denounce it (emphasis mine):
Trump has accumulated a lot of support from the GOP nativist base in large part because they trust him to enforce immigration laws. The first sentence in his plan is “When politicians talk about ‘immigration reform’ they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders,” and he’s right. Few national politicians and fewer business leaders are serious about deporting 11 million people. Undocumented immigrants are a necessary part of the national economy; American enforcement practices are designed to manage, not eliminate, violations of border laws.
Taking that contention at face value, I guess that in a shitty service economy like the United States, immigrants can provide some benefits. Is that something we really want to encourage though? In an already terrible job market, importing yet more low-wage, unskilled workers doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. Anyway, after mouthing the usual tired cultural left/libertarian talking points, Harris raises hyperbole to an art form:
First of all, there’s the scale. Deporting 11 million people would be a population transfer so large it only has a couple historical precedents, and one of them is Adolf Hitler’s. To extract that many people from their communities would require a much larger and more determined effort that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is capable of at present. To this end, Trump proposes tripling the number of ICE officers, specifically geared to increase deportations. In a country with volunteer border patrols and lasting unemployment, I don’t think President Trump would have a problem recruiting.
That’s right, wanting to deport illegal immigrants – which wouldn’t be deemed controversial in the overwhelming majority of countries around the world – places you on the same moral level as Hitler. Only in the US (and its Anglosphere cousins) would such rhetoric fly. Also, while conceding that Trump would have no problem recruiting people for his deportation push, Harris implies that deporting that many illegal immigrants is unrealistic. Okay, perhaps deporting all 11 million is a bit of a stretch, but there is no logical reason to believe that the US is incapable of controlling its borders and enforcing immigration laws. Uncle Sam has no problem maintaining military bases all around the globe, assassinating people in destitute shitholes with drones, or spying on the entire country via the NSA. If the American government really wanted to, they could easily stem the tide of immigration. Speaking of the federal government, Harris embraces a cities’ rights approach that bears a strange resemblance to the states’ rights rhetoric of the old South:
Sending an amped-up ICE on a mass-deportation mission wouldn’t just be an assault on undocumented people and their families, it would be an attack on American cities, where more than 90 percent of them live. For large municipalities, rigorously enforcing immigration law is unfeasible but also politically unpopular. So-called “sanctuary cities” have declared their ongoing intention to drag their feet when it comes to cooperating with the Feds. For example, law enforcement in many cities (including New York) selectively complies with ICE requests to hold people in custody on suspicion of being undocumented. ICE can’t do their job without local cooperation and the use of these legally questionable detention orders has decreased by more than 70 percent in the last four years. Trump’s answer to sanctuary cities is to defund them by “cutting off federal grants.” It’s not clear if he means particular law-enforcement grants or all federal money, but either way he’s provoking a big fight, one that pits levels of government and their armed agents against each other. Every American city larger than Jacksonville, Florida, has some sort of public sanctuary provision. I don’t think Trump wants to go to war with all of them, but he says he does.
Funny how when it comes to gay marriage, leftists are always supporting the power of the federal government over the sovereignty of more conservative states. Yet when the issue is illegal immigration, people like Harris become the George Wallace of open borders. The author then subtly endorses terrorism:
Local law enforcement might be a Trump ICE’s smallest problem. I don’t think any number of federal officers will be able, for example, to enter New York City and round up half a million people without meeting popular resistance. There are plenty of precedents. London’s Anti-Raids Network catalogs and organizes activism against immigration enforcement neighborhood by neighborhood. The group uses Twitter to spur immediate disruptions of raids in progress. American authorities may be better armed, but we also have a strong core of brave activists and organizers who are already changing the country from the street. And if only a small percentage of the various conspiracist anti-government fringe movements’ members aren’t white supremacists, the detention camps a Trump administration would have to hastily construct would push at least dozens of them over the edge.
In other words, you’d better grant amnesty to illegals, or some of my more crazy brethren might go apeshit on you!

I think that he vastly overestimates the numbers and resolve of pro-immigration types. Sure, many liberals passionately support open borders from the comfort of their coastal enclaves. But how many of these people with bumper stickers saying a “human being isn’t illegal” are actually willing to take up arms and risk their many comforts on behalf of
 their cheap Mexican gardeners and maids  illegal immigrants who are mostly invisible to them? I guarantee you that when faced with an aggressive Trump administration, they will easily fold. Harris, however, is optimistic, because our benevolent elites won’t let someone as awful as Trump win:
Right now there’s a contradiction between the laws and the practices when it comes to American immigration, and it’s no accident. This compromise keeps elite interests (like low-wage labor and white supremacy) balanced and the system running, at least until now. Because the current system works well for most powerful people, it’s doubtful Trump will be able to win the presidency or implement his dastardly plan, but his support indicates a substantial number of Americans are so full of hate they want to roll the dice no matter what the consequences.
I gotta admit, the whole “white supremacy” part left me a bit nonplussed. If our elites really placed such a high premium on white supremacy, would we even have an immigration problem to begin with? Would whites have plummeted from close to 90% of the population to just over 60% in a matter of five decades? I think it’s safe to say that our new oligarchs don’t care too much about the interests of most white people.

This little passage also goes to show that the left is completely dependent on the 1% that they ostensibly hate. Harris, in so many ways, seems to be demonstrating some measure of furtive gratitude for the immense power of our wealthy elites. Without them, poor illegals would be subject to the mercy of Trump and the “hateful” machinations of growing numbers of white Americans.

At the end of the article, Harris predicts (or hopes for?) a civil war. I won’t go so far as some of Al Jazeera’s commenters and say “bring it on!” What I will say is that you know your country is in a terminal state of decline when a modest proposal to enforce borders and deport illegal immigrants prompts comparisons to Hitler and fears of civil war. All I know is that unless some kind of action is taken, the US’s status as the 3rd world of the 1st world will only get worse. Once that happens, then we might very well witness a real civil war.

The Pied Piper of Gamblin

via Counter-Currents

The Donald
Are the media trying to destroy Donald Trump? His supporters say they are, but there is very little real evidence that this is true. In fact, it is far easier to argue that the mainstream media, and in particular, the televised media are trying to bolster his poll numbers and build him up.

The televised media have provided Trump with far more on-air time than any other candidate, possibly more than all the other candidates put together. His election rally speeches have been shown live by all the mainstream news outlets. Even the buildup to his speeches are shown live along with regular updates on his whereabouts, sightings of his plane, and his estimated times of arrival at different points along his route. He has conducted more than 70 interviews as of this writing, many of them shown in full on prime-time TV, with extracts repeated throughout the day. He is quoted or referenced far more often than his competitors, and he regularly calls into live television news shows to be put on-air to say whatever he wants. Trump may well increase their ratings, but their displaying his every move soap-opera style increases his. Certainly none of the so-called favored candidates can claim such favorable treatment.

The televised media often cites media criticism of Trump, but they don’t appear to offer much themselves, at least not much harsh criticism. They might cite a Politico article ad nauseam claiming that “The south rises for Trump, but only 20,000 of them.” Here they are referring to the 40,000 seater Mobile, Alabama stadium used by Trump in a recent rally with the obvious implication that because he could only fill it to 50 percent of its capacity, he really isn’t that popular. But Politico is not high-profile media, it is not read by Trump supporters or regular voters, it has no impact on them. The TV presenters appear to point out the obvious anti-Trump bias in the Politico report in an effort to rile Trump’s supporters, and in doing so, further endear him to them. In-fact, in contrast to the Politico report, much of the televised media indicated that the number of attendees at the event in Mobile was around 30,000 (citing the Trump campaign) when police and fire officials claim it was 20,000, and photographs of the venue clearly show it to be close to half-full.

Some of the criticism of Trump that does arise in the televised media arises from discussion segments in opinion oriented shows when a Trump supporter is pitted against a detractor, or against a supporter of a rival campaign. By far the most often cited, and perhaps most egregious effort to actually smear Trump so far came during the Fox-News-hosted Republican Candidates debate in Cleveland, OH. Fox news anchor Megyn Kelly asked Trump about remarks he had made in the past, remarks which she implied denigrated women. Trump handled the question with some skill to the delight of his supporters in the audience. But this episode is more the exception than the rule, and in any case Megyn soon found herself taking two weeks of paid leave. Maybe she didn’t understand the memo, or maybe the whole thing was a stunt to firmly distinguish Trump as the outsider doing battle with the establishment.

Such tactics have been employed before, most recently in the United Kingdom to aid the rise of the Nigel Farage vehicle the United Kingdom Independence party (UKIP). In the 2015 British parliamentary elections, UKIP got 3.9 million votes or around 13% or the votes cast. In the European Parliamentary elections of 2014, the UKIP vote share was the largest of all parties at 25%. The tendency among Americans on the Right was to view UKIP’s rise has having shocked the establishment, and more specifically, has having caused the mainstream media to go into a frenzy of fear over UKIP’s popularity. It was said that the mainstream media were attacking the party. The Council of Conservative Citizens for example, ran an article entitled “BBC losing it over UKIP” and in the blog under that article appeared strongly endorsed comments like “Maybe there is hope for the British yet. At least this shows that there are some Brits who haven’t been completely brainwashed”.

The truth however is that Nigel Farage is himself a media creation, and in particular a creation of the BBC. Over a four year period leading up to the European Parliamentary elections, British Influence: The campaign to keep Britain in the EU, claims that Farage had appeared on the BBC’s flagship political show “Question Time” 15 times, which is more often than any other guest. Others with Farage’s profile prior to those elections might hope to appear no more than once or twice over the same period. Farage also participated in a number of prime-time televised events including debates against the then deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.

And like the attacks made against Trump, the attacks against Farage appear to have been intentionally designed to endear him more strongly to some segments of the electorate. The media do described Farage as being far-Right and wanting to scapegoat migrants etc., but they first make sure that he is shown in some sort of favorable light. For example, they might show a picture of him down the pub with a beer, surrounded by a group of ordinary hard-working people. In the eyes of many who read the criticism, he is then cast in the role of a man of the people who is fighting for the people.

The question is, are the media in the United States performing a similar role for Donald Trump? Certainly Trump is not a media creation in the way that Farage was, and the media might not be able to control Trump to the extent they can Farage. But, limited to some extent by the internet, the mainstream media do control what the people see and hear about Trump.

Trump’s historical flip flopping perhaps exceeds that of any other candidate, but it is essentially down played by the television presenters as opposed to being emphasized; certainly we don’t hear a lot of the “He was for it before he was against it” sort of rhetoric that has dominated much of the negative commentary in previous elections. And no one can claim Trump is being ignored by the media Ron Paul style. In 2012 the media down played Paul’s popularity, often deliberately deleting his name from opinion polls or explicitly failing to report his performance in those polls. If that was the televised media’s tried and tested and successful technique to damage a candidate that was popular with the grass roots, why are they doing the opposite with Trump? Many of those 20,000 people in Mobile that turned out for Trump will be supporters of Confederate America and the Confederate Flag; wall-to-wall looped coverage of Trump’s statement that the flag should be taken down and consigned to a museum might serve to alienate some of them from his campaign, but the televised media just don’t mention it. The media are promoting the flag’s removal like never before, but they just won’t connect Trump to the support he has given them on this issue. Why is that?

One explanation is that they are doing it because they can no longer afford not to. The establishment that drives the changes in society has of late allowed those changes to proceed too quickly, and anyway the cumulative impact of the genocidal policies that have been pursued since the end of the Second World War can no longer be ignored. More of the people who can think for themselves are no longer just contemplating the impact, they are now feeling the impact, and an increasing number of them are being motivated to speak out. And those people who cannot think for themselves are, in increasing numbers, becoming restless. The latter may start to look to the former for explanations, and authentically organic and patriotic movements could rise.

The establishment simply cannot allow that to happen, and so they boost carefully selected people and or movements a la. Nigel Farage and UKIP; alternatively they may take advantage of situations that arise unexpectedly such as the resonance of the message of Donald Trump, and instead of carefully selecting a specific individual to further that message, they just boost him. They may or may not be able to control Trump, but they do control his image and can use it to preoccupy the people. And when the danger for the establishment has passed, the media bosses can choose to bump Trump from the TV, in favor of a less erratic candidate.

The real benefit from Trump’s campaign for nationalists is that he has raised the level of the debate on the key issue of immigration; far more people are now talking about immigration, and more are talking about it openly. This statement, despite becoming somewhat clichéd, is ostensibly true; but raising the level of the debate by itself won’t help us, and supporting Trump may in fact present a significant danger for our cause.

Compare what Ronald Reagan promised with what he delivered; more importantly consider what happened to our fortunes when our supporters abandoned us for the promise of Reagan. And in Britain in the late 1970s, the National Front were perhaps set for a political breakthrough in their fight to end and reverse non-white immigration, when Margaret Thatcher stole their thunder by announcing to the electorate that she understood their fear about being “swamped” by the Third World. She captured the imagination of the people and went on to win the election, and the National Front went on to crumble; and when the swamping began and the people turned to the National Front for answers and leadership, it was gone.

Given the near saturation-level coverage, and the generally positive slant Trump is given by the televised media, his popularity with the general public and his apparent invulnerability to criticism is easy to understand. What is troubling, however, is the reaction of many spokesmen and organizational leaders on the Right; like much of the general public, they seem unwilling to take an objective view of Trump and instead seem to have become mesmerized and apparently are willing to follow him Pied-Piper style. These spokesmen and leaders should not forget the lessons alluded to above: That it is far easier for our opponents to capture our support when they appear to share our goals than it is for us to capture their support, and that such an imbalance in the flow of support can have ruinous consequences.

And we must also understand the danger potentially presented by a President Trump. Even if he holds to his word, he doesn’t see the immigration problem as a racial problem; slowing down non-white immigration or changing it from illegal to legal will not change where we are heading. Like in the story of “Boiling the Frog,” this approach will only reduce our vigilance and allow more time for our people to acclimate to the changes that will continue to occur.

The message we should transmit to our spokesmen and organizational leaders is this: Don’t fall into the trap of supporting a candidate and hoping for the best. There are no short cuts and there is no time to waste. Instead try to tap into the excitement and enthusiasm Trump has generated and use it to drag his supporters our way. To do that his supporters must be engaged; his positions should be analyzed critically and objectively, and their shortcomings pointed out; his motivations should be questioned and his associations scrutinized; his connections to the Jewish elites should be revealed and their importance explained; but above all, his supporters should be told the truth and be introduced to our organizations. Most people won’t listen and some may become hostile, but the minority that can think for itself will listen and many of them may join us. We don’t need a majority to win, minorities always have made the difference.

Muslim Pirates Sold More than One Million Europeans as Slaves

via Renegade Tribune

Christians were sometimes tortured to force a conversion to Islam, males could be raped, and punishment was appalling. One slave had his arms and legs broken with a sledgehammer, another was thrown from a high wall onto a meat hook and left to die, while another was dragged naked through the streets, his ankles tied to a horse’s tail.

Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800. Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast) 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul’s additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. The markets declined after the loss of the Barbary Wars and finally ended in the 1830s, when the region was conquered by France.

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 19th centuries. These slave raids were conducted largely by Arabs and Berbers rather than Ottoman Turks. However, during the height of the Barbary slave trade in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Barbary states were subject to Ottoman jurisdiction and ruled by Ottoman pashas. Furthermore, many slaves captured by the Barbary corsairs were sold eastward into Ottoman territories before, during, and after Barbary’s period of Ottoman rule.

The Barbary Muslim pirates kidnapped Europeans from ships in North Africa’s coastal waters (Barbary Coast). They also attacked and pillaged the Atlantic coastal fishing villages and town in Europe, enslaving the inhabitants. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit. Muslim slave-raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland.

In 1544, the island of Ischia off Naples was ransacked, taking 4,000 inhabitants prisoners, while some 9,000 inhabitants of Lipari Island off the north coast of Sicily were enslaved.870 Turgut Reis, a Turkish pirate chief, ransacked the coastal settlements of Granada (Spain) in 1663 and carried away 4,000 people as slaves. In 1625, Barbary pirates captured the Lund Island in the Bristol Channel and planted the standard of Islam. From this base, they went ransacking and pillaging surrounding villages and towns, causing a stunning spectacle of mayhem, slaughter and plunder. According to Milton, ‘Day after day, they struck at unarmed fishing communities, seizing the inhabitants, and burning their homes. By the end of the dreadful summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth reckoned that 1,000 skiffs had been destroyed and similar number of villagers carried off into slavery.’871 Between 1609 and 1616, the Barbary pirates ‘captured a staggering 466 English trading ships.’

In 1627, Pirates went on a pillaging and enslaving campaign to Iceland. After dropping anchor at Reykjavik, his forces ransacked the town and returned with 400 men, women and children and sold them in Algiers. In 1631, he made a voyage with a brigand of 200 pirates to the coast of Southern Ireland and ransacked and pillaged the village of Baltimore, carrying away 237 men, women and children to Algiers.

The barbaric slave-raiding activities of the Muslim pirates had a telling effect on Europe. France, England, and Spain lost thousands of ships, devastating to their sea-borne trade. Long stretches of the coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants until the nineteenth century. The finishing industry was virtually devastated.

Paul Baepler’s White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives lists a collection of essays by nine American captives held in North Africa. According to his book, there were more than 20,000 white Christian slaves by 1620 in Algiers alone; their number swelled to more than 30,000 men and 2,000 women by the 1630s. There were a minimum of 25,000 white slaves at any time in Sultan Moulay Ismail’s palace, records Ahmed ez-Zayyani; Algiers maintained a population of 25,000 white slaves between 1550 and 1730, and their numbers could double at certain times. During the same period, Tunis and Tripoli each maintained a white slave population of about 7,500. The Barbary pirates enslaved some 5,000 Europeans annually over a period of nearly three centuries.