Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The problem of using Orwell as a user manual is that there will always be men outside control of the state. Unlike 1984. That was true even in the Soviet Union. Men are primally driven by status. Status is all in the sex and mate market, overlapping. Going all vibrantly Chechen simply raises the stakes for the average White man. No longer sufficient rock climbing, surfing, Xtreme anything, stakes get higher.

* Actually this pro-refugee hysteria a largely a bottom up rather than top down movement.

Just as the US working class is starting a left field populist revolt, we suddenly have the liberal European and Commonwealth middle-class badgering their political elites to let in lots of unwelcome refugees. Admittedly the elites aren’t putting up much resistance, but you can’t say they aren’t being pressured by SWPLs.

The Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand for example, wanted to keep Syrian refugee intakes to a minimum, but our SWPL community is outraged by their relatively conservative stance, and our centre right politicians lack the bottle to stand up to the sanctimonious wrath of the liberal masses.

The West can’t blame corporations on wealthy elites for this particular mess, it’s the fault of our own looney middle class liberals. It’s kind of like a 21st century version of 17th Century religious hysteria.

* I think you are confusing those who control the megaphone — the chattering class — with the mass of middle class and working class persons. Polls in all developed western countries consistently show a widespread desire that borders be controlled and immigration limited. This is reflected in rising percentages of votes for UKIP and similar parties and the widespread — and to the chattering class shocking — support for Trump in the USA.

* The consequences of what are often sold as small levels of Immigration, like “just” 0.5% of your population per year in immigration per year, are enormous.

Let 400,000 Third Worlders immigrate into Germany, a country of 80 million, each year. Germany has a stagnant population, so sans immigration the population in 25 years, roughly the length of a generation, would still be 80 million. But to that 80 million you’ve now added (25 x 400,000) immigrants – 10 million people. So now the population is 90 million, 11% of whom are immigrants.

But wait – that’s before accounting for the fact that the immigrants are far more likely to be of breeding age, while for the purposes of reproduction over half of Germany’s current population is effectively dead.

It’s before accounting for the fact that immigrant birthrates are probably twice those of native Germans.

The end result is that 25 years from now 20% or more of the German population will be comprised of Third Worlders who have arrived since 2015. Most Germans alive today will still be alive in 25 years. They might want to think about that, and not just in ways that make them feel all warm and fuzzy for 10 seconds or so.

* Inspired by Scott Adams’ postings on Donald Trump, here is some “re-branding” that might be favorable to the Forces of Sanity. It could be a good idea, whenever grammar and logic permit, to replace the phrase”Illegal Immigration” with the phrase “Importing War” (which I think I stole from F.P. Barbieri). Thus, “We must stop illegal immigration” becomes “We must stop importing war“, “Billionaires love illegal immigration” becomes “Billionaires love to import war“, etc. First of all, the latter is a more active phrase- illegality is an abstract concept, equally at home in some airy Platonic Third Realm as it is in the world of human activity. “To import”, though, is a verb, which naturally raises the question, “If war is being imported, who is doing the importing?” Taking the focus off of the migrants and onto the politicians who encourage lawbreaking puts attention back where it should be.

“Illegal”, despite the attempts of spin doctors to replace it with “undocumented”, also doesn’t create the strongest imagery, or “anchor”, in the mind. Lots of Americans have engaged in activity that is technically illegal- smoking grass, hosting a poker game, double-parking, etc. We associate the term with things that are somewhat unpleasant, but generally impossible to completely suppress, like the drug trade. “Immigrant” also doesn’t always paint a useful image in the mind. Most Americans are on friendly terms with at least a few immigrant co-workers. Say “immigrant”, and many people will think of their pal Vladimir from IT, not the Tsarnaev brothers. “War” is a far more vivid word, calling to mind artillery-shattered cityscapes and hospitals full of bleeding, screaming patients.

* Was the United States a horrible place in 1950 when there were ‘only’ 157 million of us. 1960 when, in the midst of the baby boom we had grown to 182 million? California had just under 8 million people in 1940. You could drive the speed limit all the way to Santa Rosa or San Jose from San Francisco and San Francisco had everything it has today except some ugly glass towers and derelicts. When you look at population numbers in terms of quality of life ‘bigger is not better’ unless you are in real estate.

Allison Kaplan Sommer writes:

With post-9/11 fear still fresh in their psyches, many Americans believe their ‘golden door’ must only be opened sparingly and selectively.

Fourteen years after the traumatic events of September 11, somber memorial ceremonies will take place at what was once known as Ground Zero, now home to the new 1 World Trade Center building with the 9/11 Memorial and Museum at its base. Not far away, so close that it is visible from the observation deck of the shining new skyscraper – stands the Statue of Liberty, housing the bronze tablet engraved with the famous Emma Lazarus poem “The New Colossus”:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
On September 11, 2015, these two neighboring American landmarks are the symbols of an agonizing conflict between the last century’s ideals and this century’s fears. It is what lays behind the United States’ hesitation and lack of leadership in tackling the international humanitarian crisis involving the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Syria for the West.
With post-9/11 fear still fresh in their psyches, many Americans believe their “golden door” must only be opened sparingly and selectively, even as they see their European allies showing an extraordinary degree of generosity, welcoming tens of thousands of men, women and children.
The wariness isn’t unexpected. Since 9/11, one hasn’t had to be a refugee or an illegal immigrant to have a hard time getting in and out of the United States. Anything from receiving entry visas as a foreign tourist, replacing a passport for citizens abroad, to bringing one’s suitcase through airport security has become significantly more complicated and difficult. And it is the fact that above-board immigration is so problematic, bureaucratic, and often futile, that fuels the endless flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border.
It’s not completely new. Despite being a self-described melting pot and nation of immigrants, the U.S. has never been completely welcoming. Even in the heyday of immigration to the US, when Emma Lazarus’s poem was placed on the statute, fears of the dangers of immigration existed.  There has always been a fear of immigrants threatening the safety of native-born Americans – bringing crime and disease from Ireland, Italy or the Eastern European shtetls in the earlier part of the 20th century and from Asia, Africa, and Latin America later in the century. Such sentiments still strike a chord, if Donald Trump’s poll numbers mean anything.

The preservation of anything precious requires saying no. Is a woman bad for believing her “golden door” must only be opened sparingly and selectively? That seems to me like a sane policy. Opening up her “golden door” to any Syrian refugee who wants to enter would be suicide.

Sweden: Woman Gang-Raped by Gypsies She Allowed in Her Home Out of Pity
A woman in Ornskoldsvik pitied three Romanian beggars and decided to invite them to her home. But instead of showing gratitude, the Roma raped her.

It was on Saturday that the woman came in contact with the three men at the Travel Center in Örnsköldsvik. She invited them to her home so they could sleep, shower and eat there.

In her home during the night the Roma decided to gang-rape their host, according to the police report. She had, according to the police made ​​no sexual overtures.

On Sunday the police arrested three men. They have been charged by the prosecutors and we have been interrogated. Forensic Detectives have been at the scene and conducted an investigation, says Mikael Ahrtzing on police Västernorrland for Fria Tider.

Police are quiet about the suspects, but according to the district court, the three Roma people in their 20s and residents of Romania. Just last week, the local newspaper published Örnsköldsvik Allehanda published a major report on the Roma clan Begging at the Travel Centre in Örnsköldsvik. The article interviewed one of the now arrested the men, who told about their situation.

The men are suspected of aggravated rape.

It is the circumstances of the rape that makes us see it as rough, says Mikael Ahrtzing.

A majority of citizens of every country in the world “believe their ‘golden door’ must only be opened sparingly and selectively” just as people around the world are careful about who they invite into their homes.

A poem, not even one by Emma Lazarus, does not constitute a sane immigration policy. Why would any country want the world’s refuse? That’s nonsense.

There has never been a time (prior to the past 50 years) when America sought the world’s refuse to become immigrants. Until the 1960s, immigrants to the United States had to be whites of good character.

You can’t have nice things if you allow anyone in any more than you can have a nice home if you invite anyone in. To preserve a nice home and to preserve a specific culture, you have to practice exclusion. Orthodox Judaism and Israel, for example, are very picky about who they allow in. Would Allison Kaplan Sommer want to house a bunch of Syrian refugees in her home? How would she like them on her block? How come she says nothing in this column about the moral imperative for Israel to take in Muslim refugees? Why would any other advanced nation want to admit people with an average IQ of 83? If you want to know what Syrians will do to your country, look at Syria. They are going to replicate that disaster wherever they go.

There’s no country in the world that has successfully integrated blacks and Muslims and gypsies. Why would any country want to import that dysfunction?

When you encourage illegal immigrants, you get more of them.

A solid majority of Americans have not wanted more immigration for more than 150 years, but rarely has their will counted for much as against the elites determined to flood the country with cheap labor.

Despite being a self-described melting pot and nation of immigrants, the U.S. has never been completely welcoming.

No individual and no country in history has been completely welcoming. Has Israel been completely welcoming? Through its history until the 1960s, the United States of America saw itself as an explicitly white country. It did not see itself as a “melting pot” of various races.

There has always been a fear of immigrants threatening the safety of native-born Americans – bringing crime and disease from Ireland, Italy or the Eastern European shtetls in the earlier part of the 20th century and from Asia, Africa, and Latin America later in the century.

These fears were based on the facts. WASPs are the best behaved citizens. People from Africa and Latin America often reproduce the dysfunction and poverty of Africa and Latin America when they move to first world countries.