Israel Shows You Can Control Your Borders & Limit Your Immigrants

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: You know, there’s a country close to Palestine that seems to do a pretty good job of stopping the “unstoppable force of demography.” Maybe Europeans could try to learn from how the Palestinians’ neighbor does it…

European countries are closing their internal boundaries because because the EU has done such a miserable job of closing its external boundary.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* This is the phenomenon described in Putnam’s Bowling Alone. Even individual people erect and enforce boundaries around themselves when the external boundaries are breached.

* Eduardo knows that his audience is so docile, so well trained and so cucked that they won’t even dare to point out the obvious about Israel being located right next to overflowing Palestine.

* We need a name for this rhetorical ploy. How about argument by inevitability? Hard to argue against the inevitable.

BTW does anybody know where the maxim “demography is destiny” originated? I looked it up. Turns out the phrase was coined by Ben Wattenberg, a man who wrote that it was a matter of almost transcendent delight that the United States would soon be a country be without a white majority.

* Securing the border is impossible (unless you’re Israel or Japan), but eliminating the education and income gaps between the races is like totally doable.

One way that it would be easier to secure your borders: eliminate immigration from non-white countries. It would be incredibly easy to identify African and Asian illegal immigrants if the population of Europe were almost entirely white. It would be as simple as picking out the black or Asian man.

Posted in Europe, Immigration | Comments Off on Israel Shows You Can Control Your Borders & Limit Your Immigrants

Alan Colmes Interviews Jared Taylor

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link:

Editor’s Note: The audio recording of this interview is available here.

Alan Colmes:

Hi, I am Alan Colmes. I would like to welcome Jared Taylor, founder and editor of American Renaissance. Mr. Taylor, thank you very much for coming on the program tonight; I appreciate it very much.

Jared Taylor:

It’s my pleasure.

Colmes:

You have been writing a bit about Donald Trump and I know you are someone to promote white interests, which you do withAmerican Renaissance, and why do you say that Donald Trump is the last, best hope for white Americans?

Taylor:

Well, because it is obviously in the interest of whites to maintain a white majority in the United States.

Colmes:

Why is that?

Taylor:

Because as the population changes, everything changes with it. For example, if a neighborhood becomes black or Mexican, white people move out. If you ask a white person to name a majority black or Hispanic or immigrant neighborhood they’d like to live in, they’d probably come up with nothing. Or if you ask someone about a majority Hispanic school that you’d like to send your children to, they can’t come up with one because things change in such a substantive way. So, why on earth, should whites be in favor of an immigration policy that is making more and more schools the kind they wouldn’t want to send their children to, and more and more neighborhoods the kind they wouldn’t want to live in?

Colmes:

Don’t you feel if we had more integration and more diversity, and we accepted that as we become the great melting pot more and more as we were reported to be, that that would all evolve and schools would even out? Separate is not equal, as you know the Supreme Court has said. But, as we evolve and we become more of an amalgam, it all comes out in the wash, does it not?

Taylor:

The melting pot, in fact, worked when all the ingredients were from Europe, but the melting pot ceases to work very well when you have to meld across racial lines. Human beings are, just by nature, tribal, and race is one of the most difficult fault lines to try to bridge of any of the different kinds of social difference.

Colmes:

You don’t believe that blacks can live successfully in a civilized society, is that correct? You’ve questioned that.

Taylor:

I think that the record of blacks is not a very encouraging one. South of the Sahara, before contact with either Arabs or Whites, there was no written language. No one had figured out the wheel, there were no calendars, no mechanical devices, no two-story buildings. No it’s not a very encouraging record and also, wherever you find blacks today, you find the same combination of poverty, high crime rates, and high illegitimacy rates.

Colmes:

Why does skin color have anything to do with that?

Taylor:

It’s not a question of skin color, it’s the way that different human groups have evolved. The evidence is overwhelming that although skin color itself is a minor detail, there are many, many genetic differences between groups that are far more important than skin color. As you probably know, there are some medical discoveries that have found that certain drugs work better with certain races, rather than other races. As science progresses, we will learn more and more about the important genetic differences between the racial groups.

Colmes:

Now I know you have been called a white supremacist, but you actually believe that East Asians are more intelligent that white people. Is that accurate?

Taylor:

I don’t like the term white supremacist for a lot of reasons. That implies that white people want to rule over people of other races. I think most white people today just want to be left alone.

Colmes:

Are you a white separatist?

Taylor:

I believe in complete freedom of association and when people have complete freedom, they tend to end up with people like themselves. And when it comes to the question of immigration, the fact that people have grown up in America and suddenly find themselves living in an outpost of Mexico or Haiti or Guatemala–they never asked for that and they don’t like it and they move out. I think that this is a terrible imposition on Americans, who expected to be living in a country that embraces Western civilization.

Colmes:

My grandparents came from Russia, actually the Ukraine, they didn’t speak English, knew nothing and nobody, they had no money when they came here. They assimilated. Why would we not expect that other people of other races wouldn’t do the same thing?

Taylor:

Because we see the record of this attempt to do so. As I said earlier, assimilation seems to work when the differences are linguistic, for example. It takes a while when there are cultural, even sometimes religious differences. Those things do not get assimilated without hiccups, but race, again, is a very difficult thing. There are two groups who have been in this country or on this continent probably for much longer that your parents or ancestors who came from Eastern Europe, and those are blacks and American Indians. They have not assimilated the way your ancestors did and the basic problem is race. Race is a fundamental, biological fact and every attempt to build a multi-racial society founders on the fact that race is a terribly divisive thing.

Colmes:

You mentioned the American Indians. We, white people, came here and took land and we stole from the Native Americans. We are interlopers in their world, are we not?

Taylor:

Yes, we are. There is no question about that. And if diversity is a great thing, then it should be Christmas year ‘round for the Indians, shouldn’t it?

Colmes:

Well, if we hadn’t stolen from them, maybe it would be. Now, I know you are not a big fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mark Potock and Heidi Beirich say that you are the cultivated cosmopolitan face of white supremacy, the guy providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern day clansmen. What’s your reaction to that?

[laughter] You’ve heard that quote before, I’m sure.

Taylor:

You know, the Southern Poverty Law Center really has a sweet deal. They find people with whom they have some sort of political disagreement and then they decide, in their wisdom and their bliss, to pronounce them as hate mongers, as if they can read people’s minds. I think that is a contemptible thing. They’re trying to shut people out of political discourse simply by labeling them something nasty.

Colmes:

Well nobody is stopping you from talking, but if you’re going to say that whites are intellectually superior to blacks, East Asians, intellectually superior to whites, aren’t you not promoting a caste system and a judgment based on race? And can’t that lead to some very dire consequences?

Taylor:

I think that any society has to be built on the truth, and it may be a very agreeable and pleasant illusion to think that all the racial groups are absolutely geometrically and mathematically equal. There is no evidence to suggest that. Instead, we just assume that all the races are equal and then when they don’t turn out equal, we blame white people. That’s the way America works. If blacks or Hispanics aren’t performing at the same level as whites, we blame white people when, in fact, the explanation most probably has to do with genetic difference. That is an utterly unfair and unjust way to build a society.

Colmes:

Let’s talk about Donald Trump. When you say he’s the last hope for a president, and I’m quoting you directly now fromAmerican Renaissance, “who would be good for white people.” You say, “We can be assured that he is not a bait-and-switch politician, who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them.” You go on to talk about how he doesn’t need anyone’s money; he’s already done a bait-and-switch because he is now taking people’s money. Why would you believe he is not going to bait-and-switch on immigration, the key issue in your mind?

Taylor:

Well, I can’t be sure. You’re certainly correct about that. It’s impossible, really, to read someone’s mind and I would be disappointed if he did, but he has based his success and popularity so far, I think, primarily on his position on immigration. I think it would be very, very difficult for him to change that.

Colmes:

You also talk about, the key you say, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. So you support raids on undocumented who are not criminals? You want those images on television?

Taylor:

The best way to get illegal immigrants to deport themselves would be to give them fair notice. You would say, “OK, in x number of months, we will start deporting people and they don’t have to be criminals. You can choose the time to leave yourself or you can wait until we come and make you leave.” Under those circumstances, if that was a credible policy, many would self-deport. Those who wait around to test the policy–If you have the scenario you just described, and people were just uprooted and sent home–that would be a very powerful message and you wouldn’t have to do that very often.

Colmes:

You want to raid factories. You want to raid classrooms. You want to separate families. Right?

Taylor:

No. I’m not insisting on separating families at all. Family unification is one of the principles of our immigration policy on the assumption that families should stay together, but if a family is made up of illegals and legals–and that’s often the case because of this crazy anchor baby system we have in which if an illegal immigrant comes here, has a baby, the baby becomes a U.S. citizen–If we deport the parents, then of course, we deport the American citizens with them too.

Colmes:

And you’re going to deport people who have roots here, in many cases, who have been here for decades, are taxpayers, workers, contributors of society, you’d throw them out too?

Taylor:

You are going to ignore the law. Is that your preference?

Colmes:

Well, the law is one thing. I understand the argument about the law, but this is not murder, this is not criminal law, this is a civil issue in our code, I believe it’s Title 8, as you know, and it’s not even analogous to going through a red light. But to equate this and to call them criminals, when it’s not a criminal act, but rather a civil act, is not accurate.

Taylor:

Deportation is not murder, either.

Colmes:

But you know, we’re not likely to round up and deport eight, 10, 11, whatever the number is, million people. You know that’s not going to happen.

Taylor:

My point is you wouldn’t have to if you had E-verify. That is to say that if you had to verify the legal status of anyone you employ. And look, I’m all for prosecuting the people who employ illegal immigrants. That would send a very strong message, too. There are people who want to hire cheap Mexicans, I’m all for prosecuting them, too.

Colmes:

Mr. Taylor, I’ve got to take a quick break here, but don’t go away. There are one or two more things I’d like to ask you. I appreciate your time tonight, Jared Taylor, founder and editor of American Renaissance, who believes a best America is a white America and that Donald Trump is the person to make it happen. Back in a moment.

[break music]

Colmes:

I’m Alan Colmes and we’re talking to Jared Taylor of American Renaissance who says that Donald Trump is the best thing that can happen to white America. You are quoted as having said, Jared, “I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don’t want them to look Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg.” But, if they did, would you love them any less?

[laughter]

Taylor:

Oh, I’m sure I would love them just as much, but I’m allowed to have preferences, am I not? Also, I just wanted to make a comment about the way you signed off the earlier segment. You make it sound strange and disturbing that I would prefer that the United States remain majority white. But that is an assumption and a preference that is taken for granted in every non-white country. The Japanese don’t allow any immigration because they have this quaint idea that they’d like to remain Japanese and nobody would ever say that Nigeria or Mexico should ever have an immigration policy that . . . .

Colmes:

Japanese is a nationality, not a race.

Taylor:

Of course. But, Americans, at one point in time, thought they had a nationality too.

Colmes:

Where does it say in our Constitution anything about us being a white country? You think if our forefathers wanted us to be primarily white, it would have been in our founding document.

Taylor:

The very first immigration law passed in the United States, the naturalization law that allowed who was going to become an American citizen, was passed by the first Congress in 1790. It reserved citizenship only to free white persons, and until 1965, we had an immigration policy that was designed to keep the country majority European. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it reflected what everyone took for granted: that the United States was a European country and would remain a European country.

Colmes:

They didn’t put it in the Constitution. Why not, if it is so important?

Taylor:

Because they took it absolutely for granted. They never dreamed–I mean to put in the Constitution that families should love their children more than they would love the children of strangers. This was so obvious there wasn’t any need for it in the Constitution. It is a pity they didn’t put it in.

Colmes:

So you believe that only whites should be citizens of the United States?

Taylor:

No, I’ve never said that. I think it should be a self-consciously majority European country. I’m not talking about . . .

Colmes:

But we’re not European, we’re American. We’re not European.

Taylor:

We are of European origin. We have a European culture, we have European institutions. For example, take the state of Israel. Israel has an immigration policy designed to keep Israel Jewish. I say, absolutely God bless them. That’s because they realize that if it ceases to be Jewish it would change in ways that the Jewish Israelis find unacceptable. The same is true for European Americans, white Americans, for the United States.

Colmes:

I’m Jewish by the way, but I’m not a big Zionist, which may not surprise you. But, that’s partly because Jews have been chased out of every country they have ever been in. Whites have not, right? So you can’t really compare them.

Taylor:

I can compare them in the sense of people wanting to preserve a heritage, wanting to preserve a texture of life, a way of being. I think that is absolutely fundamental. If, for example, people were pouring into Papua New Guinea and changing its culture, people would say that’s a crime. Look at all the Han Chinese pouring into Tibet. Even liberals, like yourself, say that’s not a good thing, but if it happens in white countries, European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, that’s apparently fine.

Colmes:

What do you think it means on the Statue of Liberty where it says, “give us your tired, your poor, your teeming masses burning to be free.”

Taylor:

I don’t want the wretched refuse of anyone’s shore. Why should I want that? Besides, that poem was put up after the erection of the statue. The statue is Liberty Enlightening the World; it was a gift to the United States from France because the United States was considered a beacon of liberty, not a magnet for wretched refuse.

Colmes:

A beacon of liberty for anyone who could come here or wanted to come here. But, let me ask you this . . .

Taylor:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I keep telling you that until ‘65, we had a very sensible immigration policy that guaranteed a European majority.

Colmes:

You know, Mr. Taylor, by the year 2050 or 2040, it’s been surmised, we will no longer be a white majority country. We’re likely to be non-white Hispanic or certainly whites will not be the majority. Are you fighting a losing battle?

Taylor:

Maybe so, but it’s a battle that I think is worth fighting because it’s something, I think, that every healthy person, every healthy group takes for granted. Every normal, healthy person wants his people, his group, to prosper and survive, and it has nothing to do with disliking other groups. As I said, the Japanese would like to stay Japanese, and it doesn’t mean they hate anyone else, but they have the right to remain Japanese and I think whites have a right to countries where they are the majority, where their culture is taken for granted. Why is that a bad thing?

Colmes:

You say that whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians. Would you be more willing to allow East Asians to settle here than blacks?

Taylor:

Oh, yes, unquestionably. If you had to make a choice between being swapped out by a less intelligent race and being swapped out by a more intelligent race, yes, East Asians will have less crime, less illegitimacy, they will carry forward Western civilization in some respects. They like classical music, they like Western literature, but they are not us.

Colmes:

Do you think it’s fair to stereotype like this?

Taylor:

I mean, we’re talking about averages. All stereotypes are basically true.

Colmes:

[laughter] Well, maybe less and less of them as time goes on. Look, I do appreciate, Mr. Taylor, you being on the program ontonight and spreading your views, or sharing them I should say, with our audience. Thank you very much for your time.

Posted in Donald Trump, Whites | Comments Off on Alan Colmes Interviews Jared Taylor

Do You Want To Limit Immigration To The Cognitive Elite?

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

I want the Jewish state to be as Jewish as possible. I want Jews to be more than 90% of Israel’s citizens. I want them determining their own destiny. I want them running their own politics, culture, religion and media. I don’t want them displaced and ruled over by high IQ aliens.

So I then extend this thinking to other groups and it helps me to respect their desire to maintain their cohesion and strength.

Anatoly Karlin writes:

This is a good anti-immigration argument that you see nowadays in those gray areas of online commentary that attempt to straddle that fine line that delineates barely acceptable from unacceptable discourse in respectable society.

Of course, very conveniently, very few Syrians – let alone Sub-Saharan Africans – would qualify, as pointed out by Steve Sailer and psychometricians like James Thompson and Heiner Rindermann.

It’s an argument I bought into myself for quite a few years. But I’m not really sure I do so nowadays. Here are a few reasons.

(1) Regression to the mean. This is the least important reason. It only happens once, and if the immigrants in question are at >125 IQs, their progeny are virtually guaranteed to continue to be well above average in the future (if not to as great an extent).

(2) Cognitive colonialism. Scouring the Third World of its already very limited stock of high IQ people will very seriously hamper their already dim development prospects. Sure, this will not have any discernible effect if you’re talking about China. 7% of the Chinese population, or ~100 million people of its 1350 million people, has a >125 IQ assuming a 103 average and S.D. = 15. But the equivalent figure for Syria, with its 81 average IQ, is 0.2%, or a mere 40,000 or so of its 20 million population. These tail effects will be all the more extreme for ~70 IQ Sub-Saharan Africans, of whom only 0.1% would qualify. Strip those societies of the cognitive elites they need to institute good policies that would make those countries more prosperous and habitable – and incidentally, less likely to generate massive refugee waves in the first place – and you end up creating only fairly marginal additional benefits to the already cognitively gifted First World. One could call this cognitive colonialism.

(3) Cultural bell curves. Societies can also differ cardinally from each other in terms of cultural values even if they have otherwise equal IQ levels. For instance, translated onto an IQ-like scale, there is possibly a greater than 1 S.D. difference between the Greeks and the Germans in terms of their future time orientation. Even though they have achieved similar levels of economic output per capita (since that depends very largely just on IQ), these differences in national time orientations arguably underlie much of the Eurozone’s economic dysfunction. The differences between Europeans and Arabs, or Europeans and Africans, will likely be all the more profound and not just in terms of time horizons but also in propensities towards violent crime, ethnocentrism, and other cultural factors too subtle to measure or potentially even define.

(4) Ethnic capture. This is at the very border between edgy and taboo, between the academese of Amy Chua’s “market dominant minorities,” the quasi-academese of Kevin MacDonald’s (and W.D. Hamilton’s) “ethnic genetic interests,” and the decidedly non-academese of “Zionist Occupation Government” propounded by members of a certain weather related forum. But it’s worth mentioning at least in passing. The theory goes that certain ethnic groups, because of their above average levels of guile, intelligence, ethnic solidarity, and/or some combination thereof, can in effect “seize” or at least substantially influence their host country’s policies – and not always to the benefit of the indigenous population. Even if they are not successful at that they can still, by virtue of their cognitive elite status – and in the US, at least, policy always hews to the preferences of the cognitive elites, while the proles have to follow along – conceivably shift society’s mores and values in a direction deeply at odds with the wishes and desires of the indigenous population. In short, why risk even testing this theory out, if you don’t absolutely have to?

So overall that’s a pretty solid case if I do say so myself. More importantly, it covers pretty much all ideological bases. The first argument is just elementary biology. The second is progressive and anti-imperialist. The third is primarily cultural and should appeal somewhat to mainstream conservatives. The fourth I suspect is for people who let’s just say probably don’t need much convincing in the first place.

Posted in Immigration, IQ | Comments Off on Do You Want To Limit Immigration To The Cognitive Elite?

Dennis Prager: Europe Is Making a Fatal Mistake

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

Dennis Prager writes September 15, 2015:

Allowing millions of Syrians and others from the Muslim Middle East into Europe will end up a catastrophe for Europe, and therefore for the West.

This may be the most difficult sentence I have ever written. Little seems more obviously moral than to allow these benighted Syrians, Iraqis and others to flee from hell into heaven. Therefore, arguing against allowing large numbers of them into Europe (and the United States) seems to be advocating for something that is heartless and just morally wrong.

Also, as a Jew, I am particularly sensitive to any parallels to the Holocaust. And looking at photos and videos of families trying to escape Syria, where two monsters — the Assad regime and the Islamic State — are devouring each other and hundreds of thousands in their way, how can I not think back to a time when Jews sought to escape the Nazi monster devouring them?

It was precisely this thinking that led the distinguished former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, to write a moving column for The Guardian, comparing the Syrian refugees to the Jews of Europe before and during the Holocaust:

“One of the dark moments in that history occurred in July 1938, when representatives of 32 countries gathered in the French spa town of Evian to discuss the humanitarian disaster that everyone knew was about to overtake the Jews of Europe wherever Hitler’s Germany held sway. Jews were desperate to leave. … Yet country after country shut its doors. Nation after nation in effect said it wasn’t their problem.”

How does an ethically motivated person — Jew or non-Jew — deal with the emotionally powerful Holocaust argument?

For one thing, the parallels are far from precise.

Every Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe — man, woman, child, baby — was targeted for death. The Syrian people are not targeted for death. The only such targets in the Middle East — aside from the Jews of Israel — are Christians and Yazidis, every one of whom should most definitely be allowed into Europe and the United States.

The parallel is also imprecise because the vast majority of the Jews of Germany and many other European countries were assimilated citizens of their respective countries, who thoroughly embraced Western culture and values. In contrast, most of the Muslims of the Middle East — and the largely Muslim population (from non-Arab countries) already in Europe — hold values that are not merely different from, but opposed to, those of Europe.

It is not as if Europe has no experience with large numbers of Muslim immigrants. And the experience has been largely negative. Most European countries are bad at assimilating people from other cultures, especially from Muslim cultures. And large numbers of people from Muslim cultures are bad at assimilating into non-Muslim cultures.

Many Muslim immigrants in the UK, France and Sweden live in Muslim ghettoes and have not assimilated. Moreover, and of particular importance, children of the immigrants — the ones born and raised in European countries — are usually the most radical and anti-Western. It is worth recalling that the 9/11 terror attack on America was planned by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. Muhammad Atta, the leader, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad Jarrah, Said Bahaji and Marwan al-Shehhi had lived in Germany for between five and eight years respectively. Bahaji was born in Germany.

So, then, why would any European leader assume that things will turn out better with a million or more new Muslim immigrants from the Middle East? Or assume that the number will stop at 800,000?

And on what moral basis can the EU object to bringing in the million and a half mostly non-Muslim Nigerians who have fled their homes due to Boko Haram terror and the Islamist government war in that country?

Europe means well in taking in a million refugees from the Middle East. But when good intentions trump experience and wisdom, you’re asking for trouble — in this case, civilization-threatening trouble.

First, many of the children of these immigrants will not remember Assad or ISIS and will resent their likely inferior socioeconomic status and lack of full integration into European society. They will then cause havoc in Europe.

Second, the economic growth and unemployment rates of the EU countries — including Germany — are not robust enough to handle a vast number of newcomers. And as the British writer Janet Daly pointed out in The Telegraph, what about “the pressures on their hospitals and GPs’ surgeries, and of shortages of housing and school places”?

Third, it is as certain as night follows day that Islamic State and other terror groups will place terrorists among the refugees coming into Europe.

Fourth, as a result of the three arguments above, some European countries will be threatened by far-right political movements that will arise in opposition to the threat to their national identity, values and economy.

None of this means Europe and America should do nothing. Indeed, it was precisely Europe and America doing nothing about Assad that helped to create this horror. The West should supply the good guys in the Muslim Middle East — the Kurds — with vast amounts of military hardware. And we should spend — and demand that rich Arab states spend — upward of a billion dollars to help feed and clothe Syrians who flee to neighboring countries. One day, after all, the Syrian civil war will end, and they can again be financially aided to return home. Then real good will be done. And Europe will be spared the choice of Islamization or civil war.

Finally, though some on the left will inevitably label this outlook racist, that is nothing more than a smear designed to avoid confronting the real issue: values, not race. If the Kurds, who are also Middle East Muslims, wished to move to Europe and America, we should welcome them with enthusiasm — because they share our values. That’s what this is about.

There’s no such moral sin as “racism.” It is purely a foolish 20th Century invention. Prior to the 20th Century, nobody used the term.

Nature has color-coded people so we can make snap judgments to our benefit.

Prager writes: “Little seems more obviously moral than to allow these benighted Syrians, Iraqis and others to flee from hell into heaven.”

Not for the host nation.

When Prager says Europe should take in Yazidis and Kurdish refugees, he doesn’t waste his time making the argument that these refugees will benefit Europe.

Dennis Prager writes:

The parallel is also imprecise because the vast majority of the Jews of Germany and many other European countries were assimilated citizens of their respective countries, who thoroughly embraced Western culture and values. In contrast, most of the Muslims of the Middle East — and the largely Muslim population (from non-Arab countries) already in Europe — hold values that are not merely different from, but opposed to, those of Europe.

This is not accurate. Millions of Europeans Jews did not speak the language of their host Gentile nation. How then can they be regarded as assimilated citizens? If you are a normal member of a tribe, you identify first with Jews around the world, well before you identify with your Gentile host nation. Orthodox Jews in particular (and other traditional members of tribes, such as blacks and Muslims) feel a primary loyalty to their own kind first, to Jews, to Torah and to their traditional way of life long before they feel an obligation to their Gentile host nation.

Prager writes:

It is not as if Europe has no experience with large numbers of Muslim immigrants. And the experience has been largely negative. Most European countries are bad at assimilating people from other cultures, especially from Muslim cultures. And large numbers of people from Muslim cultures are bad at assimilating into non-Muslim cultures.

No group assimilates except in the most superficial of ways. Swedish-Americans have life results similar to Swedes in Sweden. Japanese-Americans have life results similar to the Japanese in Japan. African-Americans have life results similar to black Africans.

Europe is not “bad at assimilating people from other cultures.” It is about the same as the United States. “Assimilation” is a superficial concept. In the end, people, on average, perform according to their genes.

Muslims are a terrible fit for non-Muslim host countries. The higher the percentage of the population Muslims occupy, the worse they behave (from the perspective of the host).

Similarly, there’s never been a country where Jews have occupied at least 5% of the population where there has not been tremendous turmoil and anti-Semitism.

Prager writes: “If the Kurds, who are also Middle East Muslims, wished to move to Europe and America, we should welcome them with enthusiasm — because they share our values. That’s what this is about.”

Kurds have different genes than Europeans. They are not a good fit with America and Europe. Kurds have low IQs compared to Europeans.

Posted in Europe, Immigration, Islam | Comments Off on Dennis Prager: Europe Is Making a Fatal Mistake

I Grew Up By Avondale College On Currans Road, Cooranbong, NSW

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

My childhood home in Australia.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

My mom’s grave at Avondale College:

gwenford

More.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I Grew Up By Avondale College On Currans Road, Cooranbong, NSW

The Upside Of Trump Winning

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The upside of Trump winning is that if he holds firm, foreign politicians will feel emboldened to defect. And voters will feel emboldened to vote for anti-immigrant candidates. And if Trump can start shifting demographics in our direction it shapes the electoral reality for years to come… in our favor.

* For having violated their borders and imposed its will upon their neighbors twice in the last century, Germany is trying to atone…by violating their borders and imposing its will upon them again.

It wants to apologize for murdering massive numbers of Eastern Europeans not by doing anything for Eastern Europeans, but by forcing Eastern Europeans to take in massive numbers of people from an entirely unrelated population.

And even Reuters – yes, Reuters – seemed to find irony in the fact that an Austrian leader was accusing some other country of acting like Nazis.

If Germany wants to atone for its past sins, perhaps it should do so by stepping back and allowing the countries it murdered its way across to take the lead and make the choices that will affect them for centuries – actually forever.

Germany didn’t just murder its way through Eastern Europe. It turned them into war zones for six years. It’s not only to blame for the sins of its own army, but it also enabled the sins of the Russian army when they fought their way back, including the murder and rape of millions of East Europeans; and for the 40 year occupation by Russia of Eastern Europe.

But by all means, Europe should take in 22 million Syrians, and 6 million Eritreans, and 12 million South Sudanese. Because when an evil, invading force wants to take over a country a push out the population, the best thing to do is…to let them get their way, and tell the natives they have no obligation to defend their homes, and tell them that instead of doing so that they can move to a rich, Western country and go on welfare.

And besides, we know that after Syria and South Sudan and Eritrea are at peace – their 40 million people having all relocated to Europe – none of the world’s other 200 countries will ever be at war again ever, so we won’t have to do this again ever, and Europe and America won’t be overrun again with refugees again ever.

* Which is why this whole fiasco is bound to destroy the European Union. Eastern Europeans are probably tired of Brussels imposing its will. Truthfully, they’re probably better off in the long run not being part of the EU. Instead of their best talent relocating to the already rich West, they can use that talent to develop their own industries.

And it’s not just Eastern Europe. This debate can’t do anything to help the cause of keeping Britain in the EU. If Britain chooses to leave, it could create an alternative to the EU – one that has more respect for national sovereignty. The EU threatened Switzerland when Swiss voters tightened immigration laws. It’s threatening Eastern Europe now. It will threaten Britain when British voters go to the polls. The Italians and Greeks are probably getting tired of having their countries overrun, on the orders of the EU, by migrants on their way north. There are only so many threats people will take before they tell the EU to fuck off.

* Merkel’s original open-border policy followed by border closures was described by one Guardian commenter as the equivalent of advertising a teenage house party on Facebook, then calling the police when 500 people turn up and trash the place.

* Polish-Jewish historian Jan T. Gross (now Princeton University) had an article in Welt online today.

In it he lauds Germany for having learned the “right lessons” from its Nazi past and for its “generosity” towards “refugees” and calls the Eastern Europeans cold-hearted cynics who have yet to face up to their “crimes” (especially those against Jews) during the 2nd world war. He also claims Poles killed more Jews than Germans during the 2nd world war (which seems pretty slanderous to me).

Posted in Donald Trump, Germany, Immigration | Comments Off on The Upside Of Trump Winning

Going To Pot After Marriage

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Chateau Heartiste: Anyone who has heard the complaints of married men about their wives’ letting it all go to pot after the first bite of the wedding cake would not be surprised by this study. As if there wasn’t already enough to argue against the raw deal for men that is modern marriage, we now have slovenly fatness to toss into the mix.

•Women in their teens and early 20s who continued to date but didn’t cohabitate gained an average of 15 pounds over five years; their male counterparts added about 24 pounds.

•Newly married women in that age group packed on 24 pounds in five years; newly married men gained 30 pounds.

That degree of gain wasn’t seen in couples who were living together but not married. Women gained 3 pounds more than their single peers — 18 pounds — and men gained 24 pounds.

Single people stay the thinnest, followed closely by cohabiting couples, and bringing up the (very large) rear are married couples. Since weight gain on men is not as deleterious to their romantic prospects nor as deal-breaking for the women who love them, the real extent of how structurally anti-pleasure marriage is reveals itself in the pounds packed on by the wives. A wife who stuffs her cakehole and bloats up by 24 pounds in the first five years of marriage is basically saying she doesn’t give a flying fuck about her husband’s desires. So she isn’t just a lardass she’s inconsiderate. Inner ugly marches lockstep with outer ugly.

“When people are dating, there may be more incentive to be thin,” Gordon-Larsen says.

The sexual market uber alles. What married couples don’t seem to grasp is that the rules have changed. Marriage is no longer a sanctuary from the unforgiving judgement of human mate preference. No fault divorce and a complete collapse of the old social prohibitions have ensured that.

Single young adults tend to be the most active, watch the least amount of TV and are the least likely to be obese, says Natalie The, a researcher at the University of North Carolina.

What does marriage have going for it anymore?

She says many factors probably contribute to couples’ weight, including having children, post-pregnancy pounds, having less time to exercise and eating out more or cooking bigger meals.

Or losing the incentive to keep yourself attractive to the opposite sex. No doubt many of these women married losers who aren’t flight risks, so why bother?

The 50% divorce rate is easy to understand once you know the cycle of life:

Man marries woman ——> woman’s goal is achieved (snag monogamous provider) while man’s goal (spread the seed) is thwarted ——> woman no longer feels need to be attractive to man ——> she gets fat ——> man loses interest in fucking her ——> woman becomes insecure over this and eats even more ——> she gets fatter ——> man drops all pretense of pleasing his fat wife and sits around belching, farting, drinking beer, watching sports, and forgetting anniversaries ——> woman resents man for this ——> woman shovels massive quantities of food down her gullet for comfort and pleasure ——> woman is now unrecognizable manatee ——> man escapes to nightly poker games with his buddies and quick jerks to porn ——> woman files for divorce ——> man loses half his money ——> woman uses this unearned windfall to hire personal trainer ——> woman loses weight remembering what it takes to please a man.

I have a question for all those fatass wives out there.
Tell me, when the mirror mocks you and your husband finds the sight of you repulsive and your marriage crumbles around you in a deluge of bitter bitter tears, ask yourself…
was the food worth it?

Posted in Fat, Pets | Comments Off on Going To Pot After Marriage

A Brief Introduction To The Alexander Technique

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link.

Posted in Alexander Technique | Comments Off on A Brief Introduction To The Alexander Technique

Turning The First World Into The Third World

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I knew a guy from India who considers himself sort of a white nationalist. He said white people are the only people who created a decent country to live in.

He said the wrong people are having children in the US, and he meant black people.

There won’t be any truly white countries left. There will only be a moderate percentage of white people in former white countries and that is the best case scenario.

I can’t figure out why these 3rd world people who already came here want more of their own people to come to the US. It would become just like the place they left. Maybe they don’t understand genetics and HBD.

* A sugary soft drink company has been promoting open borders for White 1st world countries since 1971. They were quite ahead of their time in a bad way.

It’s quite an enjoyable catchy jingle on the surface, but it’s hidden message is dark and sinister.

Even though this came out in 1971, even by 2015 standards it would still qualify as a very vibrantly diverse television ad. If you watch American TV ads from the 1970s on Youtube, the vast majority of them were very White and it was quite rare to see ads as vibrantly diverse as “I Want To Buy The World A Coke”.

This is what a typical 1970s U.S television commercial looked like from a racial standpoint. This 1970s ad would be considered a racist microaggression today because it features such a large group of people and they are all White.

* I saw a Al Jazeera report about Syrian Muslim refugees who were sent to live in Sao Paulo. The Syrian Muslim refugees were complaining that life in Sao Paulo is financially hard because Brazil does not offer a generous welfare system/safety nest like North America and Western Europe does.

They also complained that there is not a large Muslim community in Sao Paulo like there is in big European cities like Paris and London, so they are feeling cultural isolation. They also complained that the Portuguese language is hard to learn.

Sao Paulo has a large Arab community, but the vast majority of them are Christian Arabs. So Muslim Arabs will still feel like a fish out of water in Sao Paulo.

* The last two mayors of São Paulo have been of Arab descent. Being mayor of San Paulo is no small feat, it’s the equivalent of being the mayor of New York City down here. Everybody in Brazil knows who they are and they’re very influential. For syrians to claim that they don’t have opportunity in Brazil really are full of it.

This one looks just like the Assad guy in Syria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Kassab

The current mayor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Haddad

Also Brazil’s most famous Hospital is called the syrian-lebanese hospital located in São Paulo. It’s famous across the country it’s always where presidents or celebrities go. It´s like Mount Sinai Beth Israel in NY. So if they dropped the muslim fixation, they could do quite well in São Paulo. But these people are just looking for free handouts. It’s pathetic no one calls them out for it.

Posted in Blacks, Immigration, Islam, Whites | Comments Off on Turning The First World Into The Third World

STUDY: 482 EXTRA MURDER VICTIMS AMID OBAMA’S ANTI-COP CAMPAIGN

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: Only 482 extra Americans have been shot, stabbed, clubbed or kicked to death in 59 large cities since President Barack Obama launched his media-pumped campaign to delegitimize and federalize state and local police forces, according to an new analysis by the FiveThirtyEight.com website.

The toll was calculated by the green-eyeshade reporters at the non-partisan website. The site “compiled 2015 homicide data for nearly all of the 60 biggest cities… [showing] there has been an increase in homicides this year in big U.S. cities of about 16 percent,” the side reported, under the incongruous headline, “Scare Headlines Exaggerated The U.S. Crime Wave.”

Blogger Steve Sailer, a former data-crunching market analyst, did the math, and revealed the numerical death toll as 482 extra dead, including 77 extra dead in Baltimore and 60 extra dead in St. Louis.

“In these 59 cities, the total number of homicides in 2014 through approximately August 8, 2014 was 2,955… the total number of homicides [in 2015] has been 3,437 for an increase of 482 more dead human beings,” Sailer wrote.

The progressives at the FiveThiryEight.com site tried to downplay the death toll. “While a 16 percent increase in U.S. major-city homicides is statistically significant, it comes after decades of declines — the murder rate fell by more than half nationally from its peak in 1980 to 2012,” said the article, which tactfully did not mention the death total, nor the race of the dead.

However, FBI records show that half of the nation’s murder victims are black. If that percentage applies to the new murder data, Obama’s anti-cop campaign has coincided with the death of 241 African-Americans.

That’s 241 times as many African-Americans as were killed in Ferguson, Mo., on March 7, 2014, when Michael Brown was killed while attacking a police officer.

Still, some of the dead are police. At least three of the dead in New York were policemen killed by an angry African-Americans. In addition, an angry African-American killed two of his former journalist colleagues and said the killing was a justified response to their supposed racism.

Cops have blamed Obama and his political allies for some of the cop-killings and the reduced law-enforcement. “This rhetoric has gotten out of control.” said Ron Hickman, a sheriff in Harris County, Texas.

Brown’s death was used by Obama to advance his long-standing effort to centralize state and local law-enforcement under the control of the Department of Justice. After Brown’s death, he and then-Attorney General Holder amped up claims of police brutality, amid riots by local African-Americans who burned streets, wrecked the town’s economy and crashed property-values.

The same sequence occurred in Baltimore, when a black man died in a police van. During the usual riots, police stood by while local drugs pharmacies were raided, releasing a huge quantity of mind-altering drugs into the crime-plagued city. The city has now reached a record murder toll of 215.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on STUDY: 482 EXTRA MURDER VICTIMS AMID OBAMA’S ANTI-COP CAMPAIGN