Suppressing facts

Following on yesterday’s post here about legal immigration (“good”) vs. illegal immigration (“less good”), I have been trying to find some statistics about criminality, comparing legal to illegal immigrants. There seems to be an effort  to show that legal immigrants do not commit more crimes than native-born, and that illegals are the only immigrants who tend to commit more crimes.

It’s obvious that of late, what with the effort to gradually choke out all dissenting (politically incorrect) opinions online, that any data which casts a negative impression of immigrants is being scrubbed from the internet. It seems that in general fewer search engines will link to anything that is politically incorrect, whether to blogs or news articles and opinion pieces. Of course the reliably dishonest media report only data and opinions that reinforce the ”narrative” and attempt to discredit and exclude dissident thought or information. So it is getting harder to find truthful, factual data.

Despite the plethora of articles from the usual Mendacious Media sources, assuring us that immigrants do not increase the crime rates — in fact, that they commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, I am not convinced.

At the very least we know of a good many crimes, reported in the media, involving immigrants, often ‘refugees.’ Examples: many cases of fraud by merchants (usually convenience-store owners) involving EBT/food stamps or other government benefits. These are not isolated stories, but part of a pattern.

We read of the rampant use by immigrants/refugees of counterfeit ID cards and theft of Social Security numbers/identity fraud. We need only go to certain areas in most cities of any size to find immigrants openly peddling forged ID cards for sale to anybody willing to pay. There are many people known, even by their employers, to be working under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings, because they are not legally here, or in some cases, some are here legally but unwilling to be taxed on their earnings — the money goes back ‘home’, so that billions of American dollars are sent to immigrants’ home countries each year.

The list could go on and on. Yet we are expected to believe that immigrants are scrupulously honest if they are here legally, despite many incentives to cheat and flout laws.

And what about prevalence of drunk driving on the part of many immigrants, especially Latinos? This is a well-known ”cultural practice” amongst Latinos, as is the ”cultural” acceptance of a very low age of consent for young girls to consort with adult men.

And as I have said before, look up the search term ”quinceanera shooting” or quinceanera stabbing. An inordinate number of assaults, even killings occur at girls’ fifteenth birthday celebrations, supposedly the age at which they are considered adult women.

But pay no attention to the facts; listen only to what the lying media tell us; nothing to see here. Immigrants, especially those with certain documents making them legal, are pure as driven snow, and do not have any proclivity to crime or violence.

However you might look up, for example, some of Ron Guhname’s data at the Inductivist website, where he provides interesting statistics on cultural habits and practices, broken down by nationality. This one, for example, on which ethnic groups are most arrested.

The usual rationalization is that ‘racist’ police ”target” certain groups. Given that most police forces now have ”diversity” quotas to ensure that “racist” White police can’t persecute innocent diversities, that excuse won’t cut it.

Another example from Inductivist, this time about the percentages, based on ethnicity, displaying traits like selfishness and pessimism.

And what about crime rates within certain countries, (most Latin American countries have far higher rates of violent crime, as is well-established as fact) but the data at Inductivist’s link show the effect of diversity (heterogeneity) in violent crime.

None of this is consistent with the Party Line laid down by immigration apologists and enthusiasts whether on the ”right” or on the left. We are being gaslighted, as usual, by both sides when it comes to immigration and diversity. And the disturbing thing is that there seems to be a more zealous effort to suppress any data that contradicts the propaganda. Soon this country may be more like Europe where even questioning offical dogma on ethnicity and immigration will be a criminal offense.

The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Trump on more legal immigration

Already the usual comments are coming in on this news story, with the hackneyed claim that Trump is being clever, trolling the left, “playing 4-D chess”, etc.

Why does this whole situation give me a sense of déjà vu?

From Breitbart News:

During his State of the Union (SOTU) address this week, Trump went off-script while discussing national immigration policy, saying he wanted to admit “the largest numbers ever” of legal immigrants to the country.

“Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” Trump said. “I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”

The reactions from the Republican faithful are simply a replay of the responses used by that same duplicitous crowd during G.W. Bush’s open borders administration. His lackeys always said ”he’s gaming the system.” or ‘trolling’ or playing (yes) “3-D chess” or ‘playing chess while his enemies are playing checkers.’ And people fell for it, or at least most GOP respectables fell for it. So why are people eager to believe those feeble rationales now? Fool me twice, shame on me. The excuses made for blindly trusting G.W. Bush did not sway me for long, so I parted company with the party faithful, whose only loyalty seems to be to The Party, not towards their folk, and certainly not towards the truth.

Now, of course, many of the party faithful have repeated the magic mantra on immigration: “I don’t oppose immigration; I only have a problem with illegal immigration, after all, we’re all immigrants….” For umpteen years now, at least as long as I’ve been blogging, the tired phrase ”as long as they come in legally” serves as the magic phrase which politicians and their duped followers use, their ‘abracadabra’ to legitimize mass immigration ad infinitum ‘just as long as they do it legally.’ And this suffices to keep most GOP voters passive.

That phrase has become the default speech of the usual GOP loyalist/follower types who above all, don’t want to be thought ‘racist’ in opposing mass immigration, or even objecting to immigration per se, because to be suspected of ‘racism’ is social death for the Respectable Republican faithful.

So, as a sort of protective mantra, those on the ‘right’ who have even mild qualms about mass, unchecked, un-vetted immigration will learn to couch their timid objections by reciting the rote phrase.  It seems likely to me that this phrase and its variants were seeded either by the ‘no borders’ Republican operatives or by the left, or both, hoping to derail and re-direct any honest opposition to unchecked mass immigration by directing all the objections at illegal immigrants only, when the fact is that America receives at least a million legal immigrants each year for some time now. And if I recall my statistics, which I used to cite a dozen years ago, we actually received something like 1.3 million a year, or 1.5 for a while. So if the lower figure is anywhere near accurate, since I started blogging close to 13 years ago we have likely welcomed 13 million plus. That’s a lot of people. And then what of chain migration? How many have come in on the coattails of those 13+ million in the interim?

And does President Trump claim that all these warm bodies still leave us with a labor shortage? Do we really have near-zero unemployment among our native-born work force? Sorry, I am just not buying this rationale.

“We need people in our country because our unemployment numbers are so low and we have massive numbers of companies coming back into our country,” Trump reportedly told the media.

“I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in,” Trump said. “We need people.”

And if we do need immigrants to fill these many, many job openings, why do we need low-wage, non-English speaking, unskilled workers, who are also heavy users of social services? Why not recruit immigrants from Anglosphere countries, people who are native speakers of our language, and who ‘fit in’ culturally, and who do not ”contribute” lots of crime and social dysfunction to our country?

I can readily believe that the easily-manipulated segment of our population has been primed to repeat the party line about ”as long as they come here legally…” so as to be willing to accept millions more immigrants annually, for any length of time, because they are gullible enough to accept the feeble rationale provided — and they can still salvage their own reputation as being open-minded about immigrants and not ‘bigoted’ like those people who actually want a halt to open borders.

As for the wall? It’s irrelevant, at this point. It may get built, per President Trump’s promise, or it may not, but walls won’t help if our government is avidly recruiting millions more legal immigrants annually for the foreseeable future. Legal or illegal, if we are outnumbered by the steady inflow of immigrants, if we become a permanent class of exiles in our own country, a wall would be pretty cold comfort.

 

 

 

 

Conviction vs. intensity

It’s no news that the world has been turned upside down by the rabid left. Their ‘morality’, if it can be called such, is so warped that appearing in ‘blackface’ is a cause for outrage, while proposing to kill a newborn baby is fine with them.

Governor Northam, the Democrat governor of what was once Virginia, advocated for killing newborn infants, with the consent of the ‘mother.’ Up until pretty recently this kind of monstrous proposal would have shocked all but the most hardened and callous among us. But what with the stepped-up propaganda/mind manipulation, now most can’t be bothered to even raise a mild outcry at such ideas. Ho-hum, is the response, usually drowned out by the sound of crickets.

Meanwhile, the left is displaying their trademarked fake outrage, virtue-signalling like crazy, because of Northam’s politically incorrect peccadillo from the past.

Is that not a sign of at best, warped priorities, or at worst, a total lack of functioning moral compass?

The Bible tells us that as we approach the End Times, people will be without natural affections, and that ‘the love of many will wax cold.’ Certainly the left (and some on the right) lack natural affections — toward kin and kind, toward children, towards the old, towards the opposite sex. This is not in accordance with nature or with God’s laws.

The left, lacking natural feelings, can only manage to act out some feigned ‘offense’ — oddly enough on behalf of other people, never on behalf of their own, not even their own children or parents in some cases.

I’d love to confront some of the lefties I know about Northam and those like him, people who deem taking a helpless infant’s life to be of no consequence — just one less superfluous human being in this world. But there can’t be any kind of dialogue with our foes on the left; they are blinded and deafened and without conscience or remorse, bereft of all but the most shallow and insincere emotions. Above all, the ‘truth is not in them’ and thus they cannot be reasoned with.

I would love to see some of my ‘progressive’ relatives be put on the spot and watch them try to come up with some kind of justification for voting for infanticide (and euthanasia) — just try to call yourself a Christian or a moral human being while arguing that killing babies, the ill and the old, is a good thing while politically incorrect transgressions are an outrage to humanity.

My first instinct to news items like this is righteous outrage, but as time goes on and these things seem only to grow more and more egregious with each passing day, it’s hard stay determined, to sustain the effort to stay the tide.

It’s been quoted so frequently, the passage from Yeats which seems to sum up our present struggle:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Do we have the necessary degree of conviction, the courage thereof? It will take a lot to match the degree of malignant intensity on the other side.