Second thoughts about ‘refugees’

Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch reports that German Christian leaders are having second thoughts about their unequivocal ”welcome the stranger” stance in regard to the ‘Refugees’ now flooding Europe:

“PARIS (RNS) Germany’s Christian churches, long the most positive voices greeting waves of Middle Eastern refugees pouring into the country in recent months, have begun to admit the need to limit the flow now that public opinion towards the newcomers has turned from welcoming to wary.

Catholic and Protestant church leaders fully backed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s original open-door policy announced on Sept. 4, framing it as wealthy Germany’s Christian duty to offer refuge to all Syrians and others fleeing civil war in their home countries. […]
Then came the New Years Eve sex attacks. After a few weeks’ delay, the heads of both the Catholic and Protestant churches have shifted their focus and begun to speak about controlling the number of arrivals.”

While I certainly hope that these Christians are seeing reality for what it is, I think just ‘controlling’ the number of refugees is insufficient. It’s tantamount to saying ”we can handle a certain number of potential rapists and assorted criminals and terrorists, but just not too many.” But letting any potential criminals or otherwise dangerous people in is taking an unacceptable risk. Why is the risk unacceptable? To the do-gooder Churchian, or to the liberal (they ‘reason’ similarly, after all) we owe it to the poor refugee to take them in and give all we can to help them, rescue them. Risking the safety and the lives and the health of the existing citizenry, even their own neighbors and kinsmen, is an acceptable risk if you think that your religion or your political ideology  decrees that ‘helping the downtrodden’ takes precedence over protecting the lives and the well-being of your kith and kin, and your future descendants. These kinds of utopian-minded people, both naive Christians and deluded leftists, live dangerously because they see themselves as being more virtuous by doing so. So a few women or even children are molested or raped; so a few people get hurt or even killed — the poor refugees are dying as we speak! We have to help them, even at our own expense. ‘Progressives’  and Churchian altruists alike are willing, apparently, to compel others to take those risks that they blindly take themselves. They would not allow us any say about whether we want to assume those risks by bringing millions of unknonwn people from hostile peoples and cultures into our midst.

The Churchians who are the most gung-ho for importing millions of the ‘Wretched of the Earth’ to live next door are not of the same faith as our forefathers, the ones who practiced the ‘old-time Christianity’, the faith that taught realism not pollyannaism.
The old Christianity taught that man is a sinful creature by nature, and that we should be both ‘harmless as doves’ — and ‘wise as serpents.’ A big part of the requisite wisdom for a Christian is awareness of human depravity; we are not to trust foolishly but to exercise the utmost discernment, especially when the safety of the weak and helpless is involved. Those who are responsible for bringing in dangerous outsiders, and giving them free rein to roam the country and attack one’s own people, will have to answer one day, if not in this life, on Judgment Day. The do-gooders should be busy doing good for those close to them geographically and genetically; we are called to have concentric loyalties, with our kin and neighbors in the inmost circle, while people from faraway lands are least entitled to our concern; presumably they have others among their own people to help them out. The Bible does not say that a Christian is meant to rescue all of humanity, but to care for those of our own household (kin group and neighbors, mainly) first and foremost.

But thanks to our modern-day multicult one-world mindset, some ‘Christians’ have come to believe that God gives us special brownie points for being kind to those farthest from us and super-duper points for ”loving the unlovable”, for example criminals (the more violent and heinous their deeds, the more credit we get for fawning on them) and those from hostile countries, even those whose religion commands them to kill us or practice deception and stealth to harm us.

Christianity of today, with few exceptions, is more a product of the ‘therapeutic society’, the pop-psychology, self-help, self-esteem, “think positive and create-your-success” belief system.

One of the most popular phrases from Scripture that is quoted on Christian greeting cards or in conversations from one Christian to another is this one from Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

I believe everything in the Bible to be true. But this phrase in context was God talking to Jeremiah, the latter being in very dire straits, to put it mildly. God certainly had plans for Jeremiah’s life, despite the ordeals he was going through. But contrary to popular Christian ‘folk-belief’ of the 21st century, not every phrase in the Bible is promised to every individual Christian, nor are we taught that Christians as a body, or our countries, are guaranteed prosperity and ‘a future.’

Most Christians today have bought the idea that all will be well if we but have faith and exercise positive thinking. In this they agree most with New Age followers; the latter has had enormous influence on Christians if Christians but knew it. Pop psychology/feel-good thinking is common to all areas of Western society, and this is in a large part responsible, in my opinion, for the weak and passive attitude of many people in the West towards our displacement and ethnic cleansing. The cardinal sin these days is in ”being negative”, even when there is just cause for concern. Sometimes the ‘negative’ side has to be recognized and confronted; it is dangerous to deny unpleasant realities in the name of ‘holding positive thoughts’ or ‘visualizing good things.’ Yet that’s what a lot of our folk are busy doing, while Rome (and the rest of the West) burns.

It isn’t necessarily ‘pathological altruism’ that fuels this craziness; it’s a kind of passivity and a reluctance to ‘think negative thoughts’ that keeps people’s heads in the sand, while the world collapses around them.

Christians, or a sizable number of them, believe that the Moslem refugees, or all Third World immigrants, provide an opportunity to ‘convert millions’ and ‘win the world for Christ.’ Yet does our Bible lead us to expect that the world will be won for Christ, or does it teach the opposite, a great ‘falling away’, an apostasy?  Does it teach a one-world, kumbaya future, or a world in which it is ‘ethnic group against ethnic group’ and Christians persecuted under a syncretistic one-world religion?

The Churchian naifs think they are going to get extra crowns in heaven for converting the Third World, and the refugee invasion is seen by some as a way of getting to ‘win souls’ of the noble savages without even having to go overseas to do it.

I am sorry to say this about fellow Christians. But I do hope the European remnant of Christianity recognize reality before it’s too late for them. If they really believe in the faith of their fathers, they will recognize the truth. If they don’t then they won’t.

Dual citizenship?

The official story about presidential aspirant Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is that, admittedly, he was born outside the United States, in Canada, of a Cuban father and an American expatriate mother.

The official story states that Cruz, though born in Canada, had dual citizenship, (American by his mother’s status, and Canadian by birth). Then, the story goes, he became a naturalized American. However I’ve read comments online saying that he never was naturalized because he already has American citizenship through his American citizen mother, thus had no need to be naturalized. But still the story has been that he was a ‘dual citizen’ until fairly recently, when he renounced his Canadian citizenship or his dual citizenship.

This article, which seems to present good information, says that Canada has not allowed dual citizenship since 1970.

“From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.”

So if Cruz is not a native-born citizen, nor a ‘natural-born’ citizen born of two citizen parents, nor even a dual citizen, (which would, if he were, be a disqualification for the presidency anyway, under our law), what is his status?

More to the point, what is our status as the citizens and rightful heirs of our forefathers (“ourselves and our posterity“) if we no longer care whether our potential presidents are eligible for the office under our Constitution and our traditions? I think fewer and fewer people, with each passing year, understand our laws and our traditions, and fewer still can be bothered to care about the laws, much less to seek out the knowledge for themselves. If we end up, from now on,  with ‘strangers’ governing us, being ruled over by people who are not of us, then I suppose our fate will be deserved.

The model minority

The term ‘model minority’ was, if I recall correctly, first applied to Japanese-Americans by sociologist William Peterson back in the 1960s, but as currently applied by many HBDers (like those at Steve Sailer’s blog or AmRen) to all Asians. Many such White Americans believe that all Asians have similarly ”high IQs” and that a high IQ automatically translates to compatibility with our folk and our culture. Does it?

Before I address that we should also mention that, unbeknownst to some people, not all Asians are alike. Some Americans get very vexed at the British media for using the term ”Asian” to describe Pakistanis or Hindus. They are for some reason convinced that ”Asian” means only Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. In other words, only East Asians or North and East Asians. Why? Why should it? Asia is a huge continent populated by billions. Why are only those in the north and east of that continent to be called Asians? In any case, Asia includes varied peoples and cultures, and not all those who come from that continent have “high IQs”, nor are all of them compatible with us.

As for the terminology, Asian is the new(ish) politically correct lingo for what used to be called ‘Oriental.’ If you watch old movies (pre-political correctness, that is, pre-1970s or so) you will hear the term ‘Oriental’ used to apply to Asians, even West Asians, (people from the Middle East). Even farther back in time, around the turn of the 20th century when Chinese in great numbers immigrated to North America, the press often referred to them somewhat whimsically as ”Celestials”, because they termed China the ”Celestial Kingdom.”

But, came the age of political correctness and language revision, the term “Oriental” was banished from our language, especially in such quaint old phrases as ”the inscrutable Oriental” — because in the new age of ethnic militancy, even the supposed Model Minorities were getting offended en masse by language like that. No longer could we use such terms as ”Chinaman” because that was offensive. (My beloved late uncle, the world-travelled Marine, always used that term, up until his recent death, but he was an unreconstructed Southron who refused to reform his language.) The term ‘Chinatown’ was declared insensitive in some towns, although it persists in some places. But if we can say ”Englishman” or ”Dutchman” why not ”Chinaman”?

The lesson here is that Asians (or Orientals, to use the pre-PC word) are just as capable of playing the victim as are other NON-model minorities, those termed by Sailer fans as ‘NAMs’. Now, it took me a while to figure out what that strange acronym meant until I caught on that it meant ”non-Asian minorities”, meaning — what? That Asians are in a class apart from other minorities? That Asians are to be classed with European-descended people because of their high IQ, ”compatibility”, and supposedly lower crime rate? I did notice that many of the Asiaphiles on AmRen and the HBD blogs spoke of ‘Whites and Asians’ as some kind of portmanteau word, ‘whitesandasians‘, as if we were conjoined.

High IQs=Just Like Us.

As to the IQ business, this chart shows that IQs in various Asian countries differ widely.

But IQ notwithstanding, there doesn’t seem to be that much evidence that Asians, even the ‘model’ variety, consider themselves as some kind of honorary Europeans, or as part of some monolithic bloc, as over against the ”NAMs”, as some White HBDers believe.

And if you really need convincing, we can just look at things in Canada, where there is a very large (and growing) Chinese population. Ricardo Duchesne’s piece tells us how Henry Yu, a history professor in British Columbia, believes Canada to be a ‘White supremacist” country.

Sure, here in this country we have extreme leftist ethnic academics, who preach similar ideas for their own people — most often Hispanic or black academics, but then they are ‘NAMs’ who are expected to think and talk that way — not ‘model minorities’ who are considered part of this ‘whitesandasians’ alliance.

Maybe it’s just that the model minorities are jumping on the victimhood bandwagon because it’s been proven to be such a handy tool with which to bludgeon PC-whipped White folk, or maybe they feel emboldened to speak their minds truly as their numbers increase. Whatever the reason, it’s time we realized that they don’t necessarily identify with our ‘whitesandasians’ construct. It seems like an unrequited love affair on the part of many Whites toward Asians. While Whites are constantly accused (and convicted by the left) of being ‘haters’ we are more truly a lot of unrequited lovers: so many have their ‘favorite minority’ group. But how often is this reciprocated? Really?

‘Calais and open borders’

At Oz Conservative, Mark Richardson posts a video of a speech given by a resident of Calais, France, describing the horrible conditions that exist in that once-pleasant city, now unhappily the home of the ‘Calais Jungle’ migrant camp.

I encourage you to watch the video. I had some idea of how things were there, but it’s worse that what I had imagined, and many cities in former Christendom are experiencing similar fates — and more will undergo similar disasters as long as there are treasonous globalists in charge everywhere in the West.

And to think there is at least one blog written by leftists who claim ‘solidarity’ with the marauding ‘clandestins’, and according to the woman speaking in the video, it’s such home-grown leftists who act in concert with the ”migrants” aiding and abetting their crimes, and in essence betraying their own kinsmen and country. How long will this be allowed to go on? All the while, the local ‘police’ in Calais refuse to act against the ‘migrants’, instead arresting patriotic French people — including General Piquemal whose troubling story has been featured on the Gallia Watch blog.

Globe Theatre gets enriched

The Daily Mail Online has a story on how Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre went to the Calais Jungle migrant camp to put on a performance of Hamlet for the poor souls who are encamped there. The performance was cut short — initially the report said because of weather — because of the fact that many of the poor sad migrants were armed with knives.

“A spokesperson for Shakespeare’s Globe said on Monday that the performance of Hamlet was pre-planned to be a shortened version to make it appropriate for the venue and the audience.

‘We were aware of knives being present, but this was one of several factors that led us to lightly shorten what was always going to be a shortened version of the production.’ ”

The Globe spokesmen and the Daily Mail are clearly trying to save face, or more accurately, to deny that any real threat existed, and it’s almost sad, but yet ignorance is not pretty, and willful ignorance is unforgivable in situations like this.

The multicultists are determined not to learn anything from previous incidents, or from the overall news reports on the hostile and violent behavior on the part of their refugee clients.

Did these Globe Theatre people not hear of the very recent attack on the Dutch journalist and photographer who went to the camp with do-gooding intentions and were attacked for their trouble?

Obviously these social justice ‘One World’ types think that if we show them our trust and our loving intentions, they will respond in kind. If the ‘refugees’ or any victim group behaves badly it’s only because they ”felt threatened” by us, so if we be nice they will reciprocate — right?

It reminds me of the scene in the 1950s movie The War of the Worlds. The aliens have landed in California and have not shown themselves yet. A Christian minister has blind faith that the aliens will surely be our friends if we approach in friendship and trust. Remember the scene where he walks toward the Martian craft, carrying a Bible and reciting the 23rd Psalm? He promptly gets vaporized by the Martian death ray.  Sooner or later that happens to most such naively trusting do-gooders. The Christian faith does not teach us blind faith in human nature, and the Christian faith does not teach us that ‘noble savages’ are like innocent children, incapable of sinning or doing wrong. The Rousseauian, egalitarian ‘gospel’ teaches that. And those who follow that false gospel are either too dim to notice that their approach amounts to courting danger, or maybe they are just hell-bent on sticking to their failed beliefs, regardless.

It’s very tempting to have a laugh at the expense of these people, but that won’t do, because they are not just content to expose themselves to harm in the name of their juvenile philosophy; they are intent on making all of us in the West walk into the ambush with them.

Home truths

From about ten years ago, the text below is a piece I wrote for the old blog. What I wrote then is even more urgent now. We should frame the issue of our dispossession in terms of the loss of home, of the very idea of home, haven, property, security.

“Millions of words have been written and spoken in the last few months on this subject of immigration. Yet one of the most obvious issues at stake here is almost never addressed: the issue of the displacement of American citizens in their own homeland

The media specialize in tear-jerker, manipulative melodramas about the sorrows of the poor immigrant, far from home in a foreign and ‘racist’ land. We are invited to feel empathy for the immigrant because he is far from home, and a stranger to the language and the customs and the institutions of the country in which he is sojourning. We, the readers, are made to feel that somehow this situation is not of his contriving; he is a mere pawn or victim, who has no choice in this sad situation. Nowhere is it ever suggested that the immigrant is in self-chosen difficulties.

Yet while our media moralists are full of sympathy for the plight of the immigrants, and dwell on the endless pathos of their situation, nowhere is there any indication of empathy, let alone sympathy, for the losses of American citizens. In many cases, the overcrowding and social upheaval that has accompanied mass immigration has literally driven many Americans out of their homes; California, between 1995 and 2000, experienced an outmigration of 755,000.

It is no coincidence that this out-migration coincided with an even larger number of in-migration, much of which was from outside the country. Many outmigrants flee because of lost jobs, increased crowding and traffic, housing shortages, increased property taxes, deterioration of schools and closing of hospitals, as well as the increase in crime rates and the ghettoization of many formerly middle-class, livable communities.

As I write this, I can imagine the usual liberal condemnations: White Americans are just ‘xenophobic’ and ‘racist’; why can’t Americans just ‘celebrate diversity’, after all, ‘diversity is our strength’, and this is ‘a nation of immigrants.’ (Did I leave out any of the usual Orwellian phrases?)

Yet these liberals (and I include the faux-conservatives who support mass immigration in this category, whether they admit it or not) are denying one of the most primal needs of the human soul: the need for home, the need for a place where one can be surrounded by the familiar, the comfortable, the known; where one knows that one is safe and secure. HOME; the very word conjures up images of family, of serenity, of ‘knownness’.

When we say we are ‘at home‘ with something or someone, that means we are relaxed and secure; we feel most free at home, ideally. We are free to be ourselves, to speak our minds, and to know that we are accepted. While it’s true that none of us has a picture-perfect home and family, most of us know that we can count on our families to take us as we are; we know that even when we disagree with our families, we are still accepted.

To the extent that we are not secure in our homes, to the extent we may not speak our minds freely, to the extent that we must watch our p’s and q’s and live uneasily, we are not ‘at home’.

More and more, as our country’s borders become almost non-existent, as our country is transmogrified into something that is unrecognizable to us, as we have to watch what we say and curb our tongues lest we ‘offend’ our uninvited guests — we sense that we are not ‘at home’ anymore, that this country is no longer home to us. We are no longer secure in our homes and our persons as the crime rate increases with mass immigration, and of course with the possibility of terror attacks in our country (thanks also to our insane immigration policies). This, I think, fills many Americans with a sense of frustration,and with a certain amount of reasonable fear.

There’s  also a sense of anger and indignation in some cases, and a profound sense of loss.

Home is a very emotional word and concept to us; there is a deep need in us for that sense of belonging and possession and safety and familiarity and warmth that is encompassed in the word ‘home’.

To deprive someone of a home is a serious wrong; we all of us feel that in our bones.
Those of a liberal bent, in their self-righteousness, tell us that we must ‘share’ our home with all the world’s unfortunates. What’s the famous phrase of Lenin’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need“? We have, and they need, so we must stop being so selfish and open our home to anybody who shows up on our doorstep and lets himself in. In fact we are being urged to give the keys to our home to everybody — or to take the locks off our doors and lay down the red carpet for all and sundry, regardless of whether they come as a polite guest or an armed robber. Mustn’t discriminate; that would be unfair.

To the extent that I have no control over who enters my dwelling, it is no longer my home. If my home belongs to everybody, then it is not ‘my’ home anymore. I no longer have a home, if I can no longer control who enters it.

Many of us feel that we are being dispossessed in our own land; we feel like strangers in the country we were born in. As if that fact weren’t bad enough, we are supposed to pay for our own dispossession via tax money, and to add further insult to our injury, we are called ‘racists’, xenophobes, ‘nativists’ and other such names because of our honest feelings.

And the officials we elected to serve us and represent us have turned coat, it seems, siding with the invaders to our country, and telling us that we are wrong; that we have to agree to the selling out of our country, and like it. We have to smile as we are being pushed aside.

Those soulless people who claim that it doesn’t matter who inhabits a country; that people are interchangeable units of consumption or production are wrong. The people make a country, just as the members of a family make the family and home what it is, for good or ill. Mexico is Mexico, for better or worse, because of the people who created it, who constitute it. Change the people of Mexico and you change the country.

The United States of America was made by European colonists (primarily English); the new lie that America was ‘built by immigrants’ just doesn’t hold up. In the old days, immigrants who came here conformed to an existing, distinctive culture, created by the original settlers of this country. It was not re-made by every wave of immigrants, contrary to the multiculti propaganda.

This country is not a formless, shapeless mass of clay to be re-shaped by every generation of immigrants; there is an existing American people, with distinctive characteristics and traditions. To deny that is a crime against humanity; it’s a kind of spiritual genocide to deny that there is an American people with an American culture. At a deep level, most patriotic Americans sense this, and this is the source of much of the strong opposition to what is happening — NOT the ‘racism and xenophobia’ bogeymen of the liberals.”

Always searching for the exception

The search for the exception seems to typify the way in which many Westerners approach the ‘Other.’

In an interesting piece here, Tom Kratman writes about the Kurds, based on his experiences with them.

Our Gallant Allies, the Kurds (and Other Fairy Tales)

Kratman relates his first experience of the Kurds when he was in the Middle East in 1990, at the time of the first Gulf War. He writes of the less-than-favorable reputation of the Kurds amongst the other peoples of that area, and he learns of how that reputation is not ‘bias’ but based in reality. Yes, despite the egalitarian multicult propaganda saying that ‘we’re really all the same under the skin, we all bleed red,’ etc., there are people who have bad cultures. And where do cultures come from? Cultures reflect the people whose collective traits create the culture.

As American military leaders decided the Kurds would be useful allies, they wanted to frame them in a favorable light, and show them as gallant, honorable people in contrast to the designated ‘bad guys’ of the Middle East. But Kratman decides that

“..it might be better for the United States, before pinning too much hope and faith on the Kurds, to understand that they’re military imbeciles with an unearned and undeserved reputation, that their culture is barbaric, they their one talent seems to be propagandizing and manipulating liberal Western opinion, which is eager to be manipulated, anyway, that any kids who die usually do so because of their own neglect of those kids, that they have no sense of gratitude for any help you give them, that they treat women like donkeys, and that they place zero value on the lives of those who try to help them. Why we, or anyone, would place our faith and trust in them…well, it eludes me.”

The obvious reason why our military would place faith and trust in them is the hope that they would prove to be useful to us and to our aims in the Middle East. Yet I can’t help but think that even by 1990, most of those promoted to high rank in our military were politically correct, on board with the Agenda. I think most of them today, certainly, are dedicated egalitarians (women in combat, the co-ed military, promoting women, gays, ‘people of color) and one-worldists, multiculturalists. And like just about everyone in Western countries, they seem to have a deep-seated need to find wonderful exceptions, Others who defy the so-called ‘stereotypes.’ Trouble is, stereotypes almost always have a basis in fact, and are grounded in reality. Peoples, groups of people, acquire a certain reputation for very real reasons.

Christians should recognize this passage from the King James Bible, Titus 1:12

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said , The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”

Paul the Apostle was stereotyping. Imagine that. No, he was reporting what was said, and verifying it based on his observation.

Just as individuals vary in character so do groups of people. Yet we are compelled to pretend everybody is ‘basically good’ or at least equal in every respect. And since our country is being de-Americanized and multiculturalized, we have to pretend that any culture is compatible with our own.

So why do the Kurds matter to us? For one thing, because in their strange zeal to ”reward” our Kurdish allies, our government and the refugee resettlement profiteers are establishing colonies of Kurds in this country. Nashville, Tennessee is the site of one such colony, apparently the largest — so far.

It has become some kind of accepted tradition now, this idea that if some group of people becomes an ‘ally’ in one of our wars, regardless of their motives in doing so, we automatically owe them the right to resettle here, and to be supported, if only for a time, by taxpayers. This was the pattern with the Southeast Asian Hmong people who were resettled in various places after the Vietnam War.  Though the Hmong have not always been the ‘model minority’ per the Asian stereotype, they have their defenders. Even the supposedly conservative World Net Daily tells us of the ‘plight’ of the Hmong, appealing to our sympathy.

Should the Hmong, or the Kurds, or the Iraqi interpreters who ‘helped’ us automatically gain admittance to our country, and ultimately citzenship? The softer-hearted among us will say ”yes”, unhestitatingly, but the result of our sympathetic approach is a further fracturing and weakening of our society. Because we must ‘host’ Islam and other religions which oppose Christianity, our rights to public freedom of worship are eroded, and being lost.   And if some of the ‘refugees’ turn out to be radicals, militants, anti-American, or just criminal, as with Chai Vang, the Hmong murderer, should we not stop to consider what is good for us? The good of our own people should absolutely come first, before our hearts bleed for the rest of the world. We have legitimate interests of our own.

In this insane pretense that we’re all the same, all ‘blank slates’ to be inscribed with some kind of ”universal human values”, our well-being has been seriously undermined as we look to save the world. We are ‘saving the world’ at the expense of our own posterity. And it’s all based on mistaken notions about human nature and human malleability.

And it does seem that Westerners have this peculiar deep-seated need to find “Others” to like, Others with whom we can sympathize, and Others in need of our help and assistance. In doing that we put on rose-colored glasses and try to see good in everyone. But not all cultures are good, and cultures which are corrupt in some way tend to produce individuals who behave badly, or at least don’t behave in accordance with our ideas of good.

Substitutes for natural affinities

The Super Bowl is coming up, and in recent years I can’t help reflecting on how people’s natural affinities and impulses are being re-directed into sports. Now, I don’t want to ruffle anyone’s feathers; if people enjoy football, far be it from me to condemn it. In itself, watching sports is an innocuous way to spend one’s time.

But I’ve noticed over the course of my lifetime that sports fans have become a little more emotionally invested in their favorite sports, and their ‘home teams’, than used to be the case. Think of the phenomenon of people painting their faces and even their bodies in garish team colors to show their love for the team. The paint reminds me of the movie ‘Braveheart’, with its somewhat anachronistic images of Scotsmen painted (in the fashion of the Picts, who were many centuries earlier) to go into battle against the Sassenachs. Others may think of the old Western movies, with the Indians adorned with ”war paint” as they rode out to battle the White Eyes, or maybe their neighboring Indian tribal enemies.

There could be many ways of displaying ‘team colors’, as in the UK, the older practice of scarves or hats with team colors. The paint, as we see, has definite ‘battle’ connotations, as well as the scent of tribal practices about it.

And that’s probably not by accident. RamZPaul notes that in his latest, here.

“Rooting for a sports team in the last acceptable form of tribalism that is allowed for White people. You can wear your team’s colors and scream and yell at the television. Grown men end up HATING people who root for the opposing team. At times this hate can result in violence.

The government and media push sports viewership as a way to defuse natural ethnic tribalism.”

Yes. I’ve noticed that too.  It also seems as if the team owners/managers deliberately push ‘diversity’ as a way of getting the majority White male fans to identify with non-Whites. It seems, in my opinion, to have done a lot to break down natural barriers in the Southern states. If you see a sports contest as a battle between ”us” and ”them”, and you identify with your team members as part of ”us”, then there really is no more White or black, at least as long as the game is going on.

As for women sports fans? Traditionally most women are just not as emotionally invested in sports contests as are the men, except maybe for school teams in which your own children are playing, or your kin, or neighbors. Many women who are ‘into’ sports now are interested mostly in the social aspects of it: planning the Super Bowl parties or the tailgate parties, buying all the team merchandise.

Remember when the local teams were really made up of people from that town or area? Then there were natural group-feelings at work. But when team members are all ‘hired guns’ from everywhere, even from other countries, people who don’t speak your language or share your culture, then in what sense do they represent you and your town? But that’s the way the whole world works now.

Women’s ‘tribalism’ exists, though it may not be as strong as with the natural tribalism of men. However it’s not primarily through sports that women’s tribalism is diverted into politically correct channels, but primarily through feminism, through getting women to believe that they have more in common with their ”sisters” on the other side of the world, women of vastly different cultures and genetics, than they have with the men of their own stock. All women are ”sisters” according to the feminist party line, and thus they make alliances with these ”sisters” they’ve never seen against the men of their own folk.

The cultural Marxists are diabolically clever. They’ve split us so many different ways, using our natural impulses to belong to some group, but diverting us away from natural kindred ties, based on genetics, heritage, and culture, and channeled them into more ‘acceptable’ substitutes.

For young people, their group identity is with other young people — only people of their own age ‘speak their language’, share their political obsessions, know all the hip shibboleths created by popular global youth culture. Ever since the early 20th century there has been a conscious effort to split youth from their parents and their elders in general.

Professional sports, feminism, ‘youth’ culture, they are all used to good effect in dividing us against each other. Our enemies have created this situation — with passive help from us. What do we do about it? What’s the old expression — divided we fall?

Immigration leads to immigration

Here’s a rare college student who has sane and sensible ideas about immigration.

In an e-mail to VDare, he recounts his discussion with a politically correct fellow student on the issue of Trump’s proposed ban on Moslem immigration.

‘He was parroting comments made by Hillary Clinton and members of the MSM that such inflammatory remarks have made Trump ISIS’ biggest recruiter, as it alienates Muslims and makes them more prone to radicalization. And so I asked him, “so what?” Why should we care if our immigration policies antagonize foreigners thousands of miles away, or even nearby for that matter?’

What else do these ‘social justice warrior’ types ever do but parrot the official party line on anything? Most have never had an original thought or opinion in their lives. Maybe they are congenitally incapable of independent thought, or have had the capacity ‘educated’ out of them. But his non-PC interlocutor asked him a very good question: why should we care if others outside our country are antagonized or even if their feelings are hurt? To make policy based on what people on the other side of the world think of it, or of us, is to essentially give them a say in our country’s policies. And maybe some think that ”democracy” means giving every human being on the planet a say in what we do. But to give their opinions more weight than those of native-born citizens? That’s crazy, and wrong. Do other countries do so? Only the Western, historically White countries — and only in the era after the cultural Marxists have gained control of our educational system and our media (as well as ‘our’ government).

The counter-argument made by the leftist student was that we are just ‘radicalizing’ Moslems by talking of banning Moslem immigration, and thus strengthening ISIS. We’ve all heard this kind of ‘argument.’ But the obvious reply to it is: if they are so likely to be ‘radicalized’ against us, and to be more inclined to attack us, you’ve just made further argument FOR excluding them — because the obvious thing to do is not to welcome people who are potential ‘enemies within’, or people who will forever demand that we continue to enact Moslem-friendly policies — or else. Or else they will get all militant and possibly harm us. As if they haven’t done so many times since 9/11, and as if many planned attacks have not been discovered and thwarted.

But it’s the same with all immigration: the more immigrants we allow in, the more pressure is on us from the immigrants already here, or their voting descendants, to continue to let in more of their fellow-nationals. If we even think of limiting, much less banning, immigration from someone’s country of origin or ancestral country, of stopping ‘chain migration’, then we have a powerful ethnic lobby agitating against it. We also have elected officials from foreign countries (such as Mexico) lecturing us on how we are horrible racists for trying to simply curtail illegal immigration from their country. It seems they have a vested interest in sending millions of their citizens North to ‘enrich’ us.

Now we have two men of recent Cuban immigrant origin running for President.

The immigration-patriot student who wrote the e-mail to VDare sums it up:

“I then asked if allowing Muslim immigration, or any immigration for that matter, is akin to a pact with the devil. Once begun, are we compelled to maintain the same immigration policy for fear of upsetting the foreigners that we have imported?”

The short answer: YES.

If we let ourselves be dominated.