Jeff Sessions stands alone

Most of the other Republicans (including the mainstream Republicans’ darlling, Ted Cruz) lined up on the opposite side from Jeff Sessions when it came to voting on Sessions’ proposal to limit legal immigration.

Alabama should be proud of Jeff Sessions. Texas’ Congressmen seem sold out to ”multiculti Texas” and the modern myth that Hispanics ”fought right alongside us at the Alamo” and other such twaddle.

It’s rather disheartening to see the way the Cruz cult followers defend his contradictory statements on immigration. It’s clear that he has supported increasing legal immigration, despite his trying to ‘crawfish’ and say he hasn’t done so, or using legalese evasions about whether he would support more legal immigration.

Legal, illegal, except for the paperwork, it’s all the same. It all changes our country. Legal, illegal, that’s all a distraction. Whoever thought up the strategy of convincing people that ”legal is good, it’s only the illegal kind that’s bad” was diabolically clever. Lo, these many years later the Republicans parrot the same nonsense, thinking they’re being patriotic and yet fair-minded towards the ”hardworking immigrants who just want a better life, and who play by the rules”, etc.

I honestly despair of these people. They just can’t get it through their thick heads. Nothing penetrates through the propaganda. The lights are on but nobody’s home. In their way, they are as bad as the useful idiots on the real left.

Even the Dutch may be getting fed up

We haven’t heard much about the Netherlands in all these stories of resistance in Europe. From all I have read and heard, the Netherlands have been ”diverse” and multicultural for some years now, and the post-Christian Dutch seem to have accepted the ”new” diverse-and-inclusive society that has been thrust on them. I heard from people in the Netherlands many years ago that Amsterdam at that time was full of Middle Easterners, both Moslems and some Sephardim from the Middle East. The Dutch also have the “Indos’, mixed Dutch and Indonesian people who came to the Netherlands when the Dutch were expelled from Indonesia post-World War II. During the days of the Dutch colonies in the ‘East Indies’ there was considerable mixture on the part of the Dutch with the native people, particularly Dutch men with Native wives and concubines, hence the numbers of mixed-race people. The Dutch and the mixed offspring were sent back to Holland when Indonesia became independent, a fact that is often forgotten when people bemoan the impossibility of sending people back where they came from. Many of the Dutch repatriated after the war were born in Indonesia and had never seen Holland — but nonetheless, back to their ancestral country they went. Some came to America, ultimately, by the way.

But if the Dutch could be sent ‘home’ after their families had been in South Asia for generations, why can’t the non-Europeans be repatriated? Just a rhetorical question.

Now if even the tolerant Dutch are reacting against the colonizing of Europe by countless ‘refugees’, you can bet things must be getting bad. You’d think the overlords would get a clue, but it seems unlikely that they will rethink their mad plan to ethnically cleanse Europe.

Chaos in Germany’s refugee camps

This story, which is one of a number of such stories, surely gives the lie to the motto that ‘‘diversity is our strength.” Diversity, especially amongst widely disparate groups of people, leads inexorably to conflict. That conflict may end up in violence, as we are seeing in these refugee riot stories.

This particular incident involved Syrians and Eritreans. Another incident involved Senegalese. Again, we were lied to when we were led to think that the majority of the ‘refugees’ were Syrians fleeing a war-torn country, ”widows and orphans.” They are mostly young males of military service age, not widows and three-year-old children.

“In the town of Karlsfeld, just north of the Bavarian capital, a group of invaders attacked security personnel after they were asked to stop playing football in the middle of a living area.

The invaders immediately set upon the security personnel with sticks, stones, and other items.
Over 40 policemen had to be deployed to halt the unprovoked attack, and two invaders, both from Senegal, were arrested, although later released, the police said.  A total of three invaders and four security personnel had to be treated at a local hospital for wounds suffered in the incident.”
I expressed the thought that maybe this tidal wave of ‘refugees’ were just the 21st century Marielitos.
“In the Spring of 1980, Fidel Castro opened the Cuban port of Mariel to those wishing to leave. Among the 125,000 who took advantage of this opportunity to migrate to the United States were thousands of criminals, sex offenders, and mental patients. Police officials and fellow refugees place the number of undesirables at 40,000. The Marielitos brought no records with them. U.S. authorities could not even verify their names.”
Many believe Castro purposely sent his undesirables to our shores. Why not, if we were so eager to prove our ”moral superiority” by opening our arms to any Cuban who wanted to flee here? Our naive (or disingenuous) politicians, especially on the ”right”, believed that the Cuban ”refugees” were conservative people who wanted to breathe free and participate in our wonderful free-market system. It was a propaganda coup, so our politicians thought, but Castro had the last laugh. 
Whoever is engineering this ‘refugee’ influx into Europe and the West is probably laughing at us now. 
I do feel for the citizens of Europe who had no say in this matter.
And speaking of having no say, how about this news of the social media, including FB, Twitter, and yes, Google, teaming up with Frau Merkel’s regime to censor speech critical of the ”wave of Syrian [sic] immigration”?  How long before that ban on free expression spills over into our country, and blog posts like this one will no longer be allowed? The apostles of ‘tolerance’ don’t practice what they preach. 
Free speech: use it (while you still can) or lose it.

Clerics meddling, so where’s the ACLU now?

Or that group headed by left-wing cleric Barry Lynn, something like Americans for Separation of Church and State? Oh that’s right; they only want church and state separated when the church involved is traditional and Bible-based. Left-wing ‘churches’ get free rein to meddle in politics. I seem to remember those pro-separation types going after people like James Dobson (who is not even that conservative, really) when they endorsed candidates or otherwise dabbled in politics. But now we have a Catholic archbishop telling Catholics that they shouldn’t support Donald Trump’s policies regarding excluding Mohammedans from immigrating.

In addition to that, we read of the Antiochan Orthodox Christian Archdiocese spokesman saying that all “hateful speech and actions” directed against Moslems by Christians must be stopped.

So why don’t the ACLU and Barry Lynn et al speak out against these men making political pronouncements or injecting their private Christian faith into the public square? It appears religion in public life is bad only when it violates the Official State Religion of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism. This is the Church to which Lynn as well as the Catholic archbishop and the Antiochan Orthodox cleric also worship, it appears.

From the Antiochan Orthodox Christian website:

As Orthodox Christians, we take to heart the commandments of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, especially the commandment that He has told us is the greatest, that is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).
We have watched with dismay as several public figures have played on the fear which they assume has swept over this country. Specifically, a recent news release from the Trump campaign has called for “a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States”. We reject in the strongest possible terms both this specific call, and all speech and actions which would encourage hate and persecution against any group of people.”

Is it ‘hate and persecution’ not to let someone into our country? There are people in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and especially South Africa and Zimbabwe who would like to immigrate here, but they would likely be, and have in some cases been, turned down flat, and sent home. We’ve seen a German Christian family deported back to Germany, from which they fled because the German government wanted to remove their children from the home. Why? Because they homeschooled their children, on which practice the German government frowned. I call that inhumane and discriminatory, especially when we promiscuously let in millions of Third World people from hostile and backward countries. We are seeing the toxic fruits of that promiscuity now.

And it is inhuman to deny entry to the South Africans and Rhodesians (yes, I know it’s now Zimbabwe, but it’s a travesty of a country) whose very lives are in danger. And these are mostly Christian people. Why discriminate against them? Perhaps because of the lack of melanin in their skin?

The Antiochan Orthodox clergyman, lecturing us Christians about loving our neighbor, should also realize that as Christians we have a moral right to prefer our Christian brethren whose lives (or at least family intactness, in the case of the German family) are in jeopardy.

We know, statistically, that the vast majority of the Syrians and assorted refugees of unknown nationality are NOT Christian but Mohammedan, and we’ve seen that an undetermined number are hostile to us and are proving to be a danger to life and safety for both Europeans and our folk. And yet we are supposed to open our doors wider to them? The Bible does not enjoin us to lay down our lives willy-nilly rather than be seen as ‘not nice’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘discriminatory.’ Discrimination means the same as discernment, a quality which every Christian is taught to cultivate, to sharpen to a keen edge, and to use in making ‘righteous judgment.’ We are not called to ”tolerate” anything and everything. We in the West are not given a divine mission to be responsible for the entire world, especially the Moslem world. Mohammedans make up a much, much bigger percentage of the world than we of European descent and Christian faith. They are to look out for their own, as we are for ours. We cannot, practically speaking, care for everybody. We are few; they are many, in proportion.

One more thought that occurs to me, regarding the Antiochan Orthodox denomination. I know that its roots are in the Middle East, and the names of the clergymen quoted sound Middle Eastern. So their protectiveness towards Moslems would appear to be rooted in cultural/ethnic/racial solidarity, because otherwise we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. I’ve noted before that some Arab nationalist activists in the Middle East are of Christian background; they appear to have sympathies towards Islam for cultural reasons or because of blood kinship, in some cases.

And I’ve noticed that some on the ethnonationalist right, because of the extreme leftwing trend among American Christian churches, have actually converted to some version of the Orthodox faith because, they say, it’s more favorable to ethnocentrism. But then since that branch of the Christian faith is more rooted in Eastern and Southern Europe and the Middle East, how can an Anglo-American or Anglo-Celtic or Germanic American find a home in those denominations, which are culturally particularistic?

It appears to me that all the denominations are going equally astray; maybe only a few independent churches or home-churches are managing to avoid being caught up in the leftist, universalist, globalist Church of Political Correctness. Pretty soon the Americans for the Separation of Church and State can close up shop, because the few churches which don’t follow the secular one-world zeitgeist are dwindling away. There will be no danger of  the ”right-wing theocracy” the left has been shrieking about. The Church has capitulated to the omnipresent One World System.

The Founding Fathers on immigration

“My opinion with respect to immigration,” said Washington, “is that, except for mechanics and particular description of men and professions, there is no use in its encouragement.” Alexander Hamilton stated: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders expressed similar sentiments.” – from William F. Jasper, “The New American’,V. 2, No. 4 “The Nation State is Finished”

Just following the words of Gandhi

On the old blog I was frequently told by various somebodies (probably trying to sound a moderate note versus my ”immoderate” one) that ‘‘of course, immigrants aren’t to blame; they are just pawns, being used by the Elites against us”, or some variation thereof. But by that reasoning, suppose someone is hired to break into someone else’s house. Is only the person who recruits and hires him to blame, or is the one doing the actual crime not to blame at all, as he is just doing a job, or ‘just a pawn’? No, both are culpable. Presumably the one who allows himself to be used (for money or for personal gain in other ways) has dishonest habits and low character, or he would not be doing the dirty work for any reason. The man being used as a pawn is also gaining by the act, in some way, so he has his own motives.

It’s no different with immigrants, especially the illegal ones who jump borders, or the frauds who claim to be in danger of death when they are not, or falsely claim to be from a war-torn country. They may be ”pawns” of the elites because the elites want Third-World warm bodies of any sort here, as many as they can possibly cram into our country. But the frauds and the illegal trespassers are willing to do illegal and immoral and hostile acts to gain entry. So all are to blame.

So why are people trying to absolve these people from any culpability, and to make it “naughty” to have a dislike for dishonest and immoral people?

Example: a comment at Vox Day’s blog by someone called Irene W, referring to the ugliness of being “anti-immigrANT” vs. being “anti-immiGRATION.”
It seems to me this is some kind of Republican political correctness. It’s all right to be opposed to immigration, particularly the illegal kind, but not OK to be opposed to immigration per se, much less to be (horrors!) angry at the immigrants themselves.

According to this school of politically correct thought, all immigration is good, regardless of who the immigrants are, where they are from, why they are coming here, or what they do once they arrive — as long as they ”play by the rules” and ‘wait their turn” like ”our immigrant forefathers did.”

But even those immigrants who may be here ”according to the rules” as the Republicans always emphasize are not without their selfish and sometimes unethical motives. They are often economic migrants who think they are entitled to the gold that paves the streets in filthy-rich America, or they are revanchists like many Latinos who think this is ”their” land that was stolen from them by our greedy ancestors, and they want to even the score. Or they are in some (too many) cases criminals fleeing to our country from their own people. Some, as we’ve seen, are jihadists, though they too may be here ”according to the rules”, legally.

Whether these people are moved by greed, covetousness, envy, a desire for ‘revenge’ against us, or the need to escape from the law in their own countries, it’s clear that they are not all the halo-wearing immigrants of old movie cliche, just here to ‘breathe free air’ and ‘make a better life for their children.’

And even if there it sounds good to limit ourselves to opposing immigration without having naughty ‘negative feelings’ towards those immigrating against our wishes, is it even possible to divide the actors from the undesirable act?

To my mind, this all can be traced back to the line from Mohandas Gandhi, the ”hate the sin, love the sinner” phrase, so often used by Christians who actually think it is a line spoken by Christ himself. But search your Bible and you will not find that phrase, or anything like it.

After all, if thievery is a bad thing, why not then think the thief himself is bad? In that case don’t we have cause to be angry at him, and even hate him for his actions? Likewise, if rape is bad, is it wrong to despise a rapist, especially one who has raped one of your family? This is a natural and normal reaction in that situation. Some will say we mustn’t hate; we must forgive, but that’s not Biblically defensible, especially when we are talking of unconditional forgiveness of an unrepentant wrongdoer.

Further, if lying and cheating are bad, why is it not logical or rational to despise or at least disdain the liar and cheat, especially if they victimize you or yours? Lying and cheating are despicable character traits. And if you can’t bring yourself to experience the natural emotion of hate towards ‘that which is evil’ then at least would you not say that anger can be righteous towards people who do immoral and illegal and harmful things?

So how do we rationalize being ‘anti-immigration’ while being ‘pro-immigrant’ or even neutral towards immigrants? Immigrants are the doers and the actors; if immigration is something we may reasonably oppose, and which can be shown to be doing harm to us and our people, why should we not have equal indignation toward the ones who are doing the acts we oppose?

So do we overlook the role played by the Elites, the powers-that-be? Can we not blame all those responsible, the so-called ‘pawns’ as well as the Masterminds behind the scenes? It is not an either/or situation. It’s misguided to say let’s give the immigrants a pass just because they are being ‘used’. We the ones being used and conned.

Mass migration as a weapon?

The Washington Times reports a continuing surge of ”children” crossing the Southern border (or what used to be a border),overwhelming immigration officials. Is anyone out there, anyone with any sense, who believes this is all just spontaneous, just poor, desperate people looking for a ”better life”? It could be halted — if there was the political will to do it. Obviously there is no desire to stop it; quite the contrary. So say the actions of ”our” government, regardless of what they say in words.

 But the title of this post is ‘Mass migration as a weapon.’
It’s not at all far-fetched. I believe I used the term ‘bioweapon’ when referring to the mass migration seemingly engineered by the Powers That Be, several years ago. Europe is being inundated as ‘helpless’ governments do little or nothing to stop it, just as with our Southern ‘border’ situation. But worse than doing nothing, people like Angela Merkel have opened the gates, and are consciously and openly swamping their countries, showing either indifference to the effect on the native populace, or outright hostility.

Elsewhere I blogged about how I thought the ‘Arab Spring’ business was meant not just to bring ‘democracy’ to Moslem countries or to depose ‘tyrants’ but to engineer mass movements of ‘refugees’ into Europe and all Western countries. It seemed inevitable.  So, at Irish Savant’s blog, a post by a regular commenter ‘Flanders’ links to sources discussing how Madame Merkel may have been ”inspired” by a book by an American academic, Kelly Greenhill.

The book describes how mass migration might be engineered and used to destabilize countries in various ways.
From the Memory Hole blog post, linked above, a description of one result of mass migration:

“Like immigration and refugee policy more generally, real and threatened migration crises tend to split societies into (at least) two mutually antagonistic and often highly mobilized groups: the pro- refugee/migrant camp and anti-refugee/migrant camp” Kelly Greenhill

In that section of her paper, Greenhill carefully explains how the planners of these Weapons of Mass Migration campaigns understand and manipulate both the anti-refugee camps as well as the pro-refugee camps. They do this in order to drive emotional wedges between the population of the targeted countries. Between each other and between the people and the elites who rule them. Her evaluation of it is extremely well documented.

No doubt ”divide and conquer” or ”divide and rule” as otherwise translated, is part of the strategy, but what is the goal, other than to serve some short-term political or military aim? The fact is, there is a deep-seated antipathy and malice that has been growing on the part of the Left, and it has existed for some decades; it’s inevitable when two groups of people have deep differences in core beliefs and ”values”. The left has become more irrational and hostile over the last couple of decades. The polarization is not new, and as far as opposition to uncontrolled immigration/invasion, it is not manipulated into existence. It’s nothing more than a healthy sign that some people have not been ‘conditioned’ into passivity. Some people actually have a self-preservation instinct and the natural inclination to defend their homes, properties, and family. Some of the comments in these blog posts imply that those objecting to this mass movement of peoples are just pawns, tricked into turning on their fellow citizens, when in fact they are just exhibiting healthy survival instincts, and loyalty to kin and neighbor.

And yes, this internal conflict diminishes our ability to effectively oppose these totalitarian measures being used against our countries by the globalist monomaniacs. But can we just shake hands with our leftist ”fellow citizens” and put our differences aside in the name of unity? Hardly. The left, even those who make a lot of noise about opposing the ‘new world order’ or ‘globalism’ actually want the same things as the corporate capitalist globalists. They want One World, no nations. They desire widespread miscegenation and the existence of a grey, ugly pop culture reigning worldwide. They are very confused people. They are most emphatic in their hatred of traditional Western society and heritage, however, thus they cheer the globalist destruction of the West.

It is evident that all the Western government leaders, as well as most of the bought-and-paid-for career politicians, are globalists, and transnationalists. The media, of course, are nothing more than professional liars and masters of propaganda, transparent though they are. Trump has good cause to call them out for their brazen lying.

Was Merkel just following a blueprint that Greenhill’s writings describe? No doubt all the establishment ‘leaders’ and politicians are working from the same script, carrying out policies that have been in the planning stage for decades if not longer, all just acting as spokesmen or puppets of the real movers and shakers, who like to keep a low profile.

Now if only the average person could grasp the idea that no, it isn’t just about ”importing more Democrat voters” or ”keeping wages down” although those things certainly appeal to certain factions within the establishment. And it definitely isn’t all spontaneous, as if suddenly millions of people would simultaneously go on the march to find more desirable conditions. It would be one massive coincidence if it were so.

Refugee resettlement racket still full steam ahead

And damn the torpedoes.
Despite the efforts of many states and their governors to stop this refugee resettlement juggernaut, these ”religious” agencies who are happily defying the expressed will of the people will go on raking in their money  from the government.

For their grubby thirty pieces of silver, they are selling out the native citizenry of the country. I hope they can sleep at night. But I am sure they tell themselves smugly that they are doing ”God’s work” in displacing the people of this country, the people whose hard-earned money is paying for their little do-gooding project.

All the major ‘religious’ (read: social justice) establishment churches are participating, as well as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Maybe we could use a little separation of church and state here.

Cruz and Paul react to Trump’s positions

 Breitbart News tells us:

“Presidential Candidates Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim [sic] nations with jihadist movements.”

While it’s good that Cruz and Paul are saying these things, talk is cheap. And no matter what the supporters of Cruz and Rand Paul say, these men are simply trying to compete, offering a ”me-too” to Trump’s calls for similar curbs. Were they so hard-line before Trump emerged as a candidate, and has made a good showing in the polls? I think both men supported and still support increasing H-1B visas, for one thing.

As I recall, Rand Paul made tougher statements on ”conservative” issues when first running for office, then began to sound like a ”compassionate conservative” a la George W. Bush:

“Are there many in the Latino community who go to church, believe in tradition values, are conservative? Yes. Maybe half, maybe 60 percent . . . there’s enormous upside potential . . . but you got to get the door ajar.”

One way to open that “door” to the Hispanic community, he said, is to offer reassurances that “Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico.”

 Don’t fall for his statements; I find his recent ”getting religion” on border controls less than convincing.

Cruz? I’ve said my piece about him more than once; I believe his Hispanic surname surely helped elect him in Texas, where the Hispanic population will soon exceed that of ‘Anglo’ Texans. And the fact is, Cruz is an immigrant himself, as is his Cuban father. Contrary to what many Republicans say, Cubans tend to side with other Hispanics when it comes to immigration, almost to a man. White Cubans included; even Rubio seems White as do most other Cuban Republicns but they vote with their other Latino linguistic brethren.

Maybe I’ve become too cynical about career politicians, as many Americans have. But I think they are just emulating Trump’s rhetoric in hopes of winning the nativist/patriot voter, the people who are finding Trump the candidate who most represents their views.