Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era

June 23, 2013
They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the “experts” and the ruling class dominion. So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans. And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels. All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans. Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America’s energy usage via “green” energy schemes. This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to

Thomas Malthus. But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness. (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.)

Unlimited Power for the Chicken Littles of the game… the sky is not falling!

@SultanKnish: #Nationalism and #Internationalism

March 26, 2013
Iraq and immigration have one thing in common. Both are founded on the assumption that national political philosophies can be universally applied to any population with the same results.
The same leftists and radical libertarians who mocked the idea that Iraqis could be successfully

transformed through democracy insist millions of illegal aliens from countries every bit as violent and unstable as Iraq can be successfully transformed by giving them legal status and the vote.
Both assumptions were and are wrong. They are both symptoms of an internationalism that assumes a favorite political philosophy that works in the United States can be applied internationally without regard for culture. And internationalism invariably undermines the nation by prioritizing an ideology over the rights and interests of the citizenry.
Internationalism is always unsustainable. Even the USSR was not able to sustain the call for a World Revolution for very long. Early efforts on the part of American radicals to champion anti-monarchial revolutions across Europe ended miserably with the French Revolution which threw its champion, Thomas Paine into a cell and marked him for execution.
The invasion of Iraq was an attempt to deal with a threat. The reconstruction of Iraq attempted to
transform it in accordance with the belief that democracy could be applied anywhere with positive results. Not only did democracy not stabilize Iraq, it destabilized it and turned it into a playground for every stripe of Islamists from Al Qaeda to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with our soldiers caught in the middle.
Most Americans accepted the logic of removing a potential threat. And that phase of the Iraq War went cleanly and with relatively few casualties. But few Americans were interested in a prolonged exercise undertaken on behalf of the people we had just been fighting. They saw no national interest in making over Iraq in line with international ideals.
The transition from an invasion for a national interest to an occupation for an international interest shifted the justification away from nationalism to internationalism.
Democracy in Iraq attempted to apply the idea that political representation transcends cultural difference to the Middle East, even though it no longer even worked properly in the United States. The Arab Spring demonstrated conclusively that democracy in the Muslim world would lead to a majority rule that would preclude the human rights and religious freedoms of the minority.
But Iraq doesn’t just stay in Iraq. Some parts of California now look like Iraq, as do some parts of Arizona and Texas. Mexican drug cartels have already turned Mexico into a broken dangerous place and they are moving north. El Salvadoran gangs have been here for some time and are expanding. Refugees from every conflict have come here bringing the roots of that conflict to the United States.
Muslim terrorism like the drug cartels is what happens when internationalists fail to realize that importing a population from a troubled part of the world also means that you are importing its troubles. Pro-immigration rhetoric speaks about bringing the best of other countries to the United States or the United Kingdom, but that has meant importing exotic cuisines and less exotic gangs.
If trying to bring democracy to Iraq doesn’t work, neither does trying to bring Iraq to democracy. Neither Mohammed nor the mountain are meant to meet and it’s a bad idea if they do, on either terms. Importing large numbers of immigrants from countries where democracy does not work will insure that our democracy does not work either. The last election should serve as ample demonstration of that.
Internationalism works both ways and it applies to the mistaken idea that national values are so broad that they can be applied universally to transform large foreign populations– whether through our invasion of foreign countries or their invasion of our country.
Liberal and libertarian champions of immigration must come to terms with the fact that the very thing that they support makes liberal and libertarian societies impossible.
Europe’s growing Islamist minorities are already making basic freedoms impossible. Europeans are learning that they can have cultural freedom and a welfare state, or they can have high immigration, but they cannot have both. Immigration is forcing Europe to curtail religious satire, freedom of the press and its art scene. And it is overburdening its generous welfare system. If the process goes on, then European Socialism will have made its defining qualities extinct.
The European left blindly sticks to its internationalist principles while refusing to see the practical contradictions in its policies. It is so committed to its internationalism that it fails to understand that its political program developed in its nation states and can only exist within the context of its nation states and that a United Kingdom whose population is Pakistani will be a place more like Pakistan and less like the United Kingdom and that this will not be a change wrought merely in its cuisine or its language, but also its values.
Some libertarians in the United States are similarly championing an immigration policy that would eliminate any hope of implementing most of the political feasibility for their program. Like the European left, they insist on acting as if the innate rightness of their political philosophy makes all the practical objections to its implementation irrelevant. And yet the dogmatic implementation of political philosophies is exactly what made the Soviet Union and Communist China such nightmarish places. It is at the heart of so many disasters… including Iraq.
There is a cultural tendency toward libertarian approaches to government in the United States. And that is also why those approaches work in the United States, rather than Iraq. Applying libertarian ideas to Iraq would work as badly as trying to bring democracy to Iraq did. Expecting that these approaches will work if large numbers of immigrants from places like Iraq are brought to the United States is equally foolish.
That is not to say that small government and democracy are not good things in and of themselves, but they are good things because they allow a decent responsible population rooted in rural areas to see to its own affairs.
Nationalists, unlike internationalists, do not need to embrace the left’s cultural relativism to understand why the international application of national values fails. A value system that may be true in the absolute sense, may still fail when applied locally because a culture is not ready or able to live responsibly that way.
It is possible to believe that our way of life is best without also believing that it can be applied to any other part of the world with invariably successful results. And as nationalists, it is possible to believe that our way of life is best without feeling the need to prove it by applying that way of life to foreign cultures either through invasion or immigration.

That is not to say that there should be no immigration and that we should never invade another country. But both invasion and immigration should be governed by the national interest, rather than by an international one.
An international interest believes that reforming another part of the world or adding diversity to ours is an end in and of itself. A national interest however looks primarily at how the the citizenry of the nation would benefit from such a step.
If immigration is to serve the national interest, then it should provide maximum benefits to the people already living in the country, not the people who are only now entering it. Immigration should be assessed on a cost-benefit basis, measuring its advantages and disadvantages for the citizenry and immigration policy should be adjusted in such a way as to achieve maximum benefit and minimum loss.
That would mean favoring immigration from countries with low crime levels and high education levels over countries with high crime levels and low educational levels. It might mean adjusting immigration policy with a view toward cultural stability and away from cultural instability. These factors should be put under the control of the citizenry who would be able to select policies that would make life better for them.
By envisioning immigration in national, rather than international terms, we can design an immigration policy that would benefit a country, rather than some internationalist ideal. And the same can be done for most policies with international application, including military action.
A national interest military action would strike quickly at terrorist outposts, whether through drones or rapid mobile troop deployments, and then pull back quickly again. Such actions would be more like the French action in Mali rather than the extended occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such an action would need to have the approval of the people and their protection from a known threat as the rationale, rather than the unpopular massacre prevention wars of Clinton and Obama.
While internationalist military action is concerned with the global community and international law, nationalist military actions are defense or preemptive attacks meant to deal death to an enemy, rather than to teach him our values or laws.
Wars that are fought in the national interest concentrate on destroying a known threat, rather than transforming populations. Their reconstruction is limited to rebuilding countries that are known allies, rather than trying to win over populations full of known enemies. Advocates of reconstruction rightly point out that instability breeds terrorist nests and outposts, but the scope of that instability is far too global for reconstruction efforts to be undertaken around the world.
The post-war reconstruction of Europe cannot be replicated around the world and trying to do so will only waste lives. The Cold War, defined at its heart by a massed array of tanks and infantry locked across the continent, made that effort a matter of national interest by building a coalition that could oppose the Warsaw Pact advance. But what we are up against now is not even Asian domino theory, but a reality that every Muslim population center is also a potential terrorist center.
Communism was a political ideology, but Islam is an existing embedded religion. We can favor non-Islamic over Islamic governments, but economic and political reconstruction will not convince entire populations to turn their backs on Islam, the way we might have expected them to turn their backs on Communism. And a reconstruction that leaves Islam in place is as futile as the hunger relief effort that Hoover led to the USSR. It is as useless as rebuilding Communist countries in the hopes that they will be moderate Communists. It didn’t work with the Soviet Union or Iraq or Afghanistan.
The entire program of reconstruction is inherently internationalist. It uses American soldiers as blunt instruments for reforming another society. In Afghanistan, American soldiers are denied air support or the right to fire first because that would interfere with the internationalist aim of winning over the native population. Once the internationalist aim dominates the national interest then that is a sign that the entire program has gone wrong.
And the same is true of immigration. Once an immigration policy results in native displacement, high crime rates and social dysfunction then it is no longer operating in the national interest, but in the international interest. And that is when it is time to put a stop to it.
Invasions or immigration should not be used to transform countries. The entire idea of national transformation is an internationalist creed.
The internationalist believes in harnessing global events to transform nations, then regions and finally the world, while the nationalist is concerned with conserving the prosperity and integrity of his own nation.
Nationalists need not be isolationists, but they should be wary of any political agenda which expresses itself in terms such as the international community or the common good. Nationalists believe in defined alliances between nations and in policies that are meant to serve the welfare of their own populations. When an idea is grounded in terms of imposing a universal idea on a nation then it will rarely end well.
Successful policies are national policies because they are measurable in terms of benefit and loss. Just

as individual citizens can benefit in defined ways from a policy, so too nations. The best national policy provides defined benefit to individuals. A national policy that cannot be measured in those terms is a bad one. Similarly an international policy that cannot be measured in terms of national interests is a bad one.
By measuring a policy against a constituency we can see it in terms of results, rather than ideals. We can decide whether the policy is a good thing or not because we can see how it affects people. And what is true for people is also true of nations. Internationalists all too easily lose track of people while obsessing over ideals. Nationalists can never afford to lose that mistake because their entire purpose must be defined in terms of known benefits to their people.
Democracy and limited government constrain policy to the human level. They resist the creeping internationalism that encourages leaders to think in terms of ideals rather than people. Nationalism similarly constrains the international policies of a nation to the human level of its people, measuring activities such as wars and migrations to the level of its people, seeing their real impacts rather than the ideal impacts on the people.

if you go into a government building in my town called the “Family Center”… and walk up to the second floor in the library there is a sign that warns of the dangers of “Nationalism”. This semantic dates from WWII where National Socialism was spun by the left as being “Nationalist” and not “Socialist”. It is a mistake to not see the political relevance of this spin. Nationalism should be the character that helps a culture respect borders.


Mexican Teachers May Lose Ability To Pass On Their Jobs to Their Children

December 15, 2012


(Sultan Knish aka Daniel Greenfield via front page mag) If you want to see the feudalism toward which America’s public sector unions are headed, look no further than Mexico where teaching positions aren’t a job, they’re membership in a guild that can be passed on to your children so that teachers can give birth to teachers who will go on teaching for all eternity until no one can read or write anymore.

Tens of thousands of teachers are blocking highways and seizing government buildings across Mexico to protest a federal education reform ending their longtime practice of selling their jobs or giving them to their children.

They’re doing it for the children… literally. Their children.

“We’re fighting to guarantee jobs for our kids,” Oscar Miranda said as he helped teachers stage a protest in front of the governor’s office in Cuernavaca, the capital of Morelos. “Throughout history the sons of carpenters have become carpenters. Even politicians’ children become politicians. Why shouldn’t our children have the same right?”

Wake up America, this is what we are headed for.
Trying to turn America into Mexico, institutionally and demographically, will lead to actual feudalism, composed of guilds of fake professionals.
But you can also sell teaching jobs.

“Teaching jobs were routinely bought and sold for as much as $6,000. That’s as much as beginning teachers make in a year. The jobs are still coveted because they provide steady income, particularly in poor areas.”

Now that the leftist PRI is back in power in Mexico, they are following through on a pledge to end the whole “Passing on Public Sector Jobs to Your Children” business, which Felipe Calderon tried and failed to do.

Addressing teachers at a ceremony in Mexico City, President Enrique Pena Nieto laid out a proposal that would champion merit-based teacher promotions and chip away at the union’s power to hire teachers on its own terms. “Your rights will be safe because your income, tenure and promotion will not be subject to discretionary criteria. Good teachers will have the opportunity to advance based on their professional merits.”

So how broken does a system have to be before a leftist politician embraces merit promotions for teachers? This broken.
But now can you imagine living in a country where the left is actually opposed to teacher’s unions?

“No more promotions for loyalty, (or) cronyism with union leaders,” said Jesus Zambrano, who heads the leftist opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). “Let’s have promotion be based on teacher merit and professionalism.”

Right winger! He hates the middle class! He wants to destroy education! We need to protect our kids from education reform that will drain us of the best teachers who happen to be genetically born to other teachers!
So teachers’ unions may once again go on strike in Mexico and that’s serious business over there. Sure our teachers’ unions are nasty, but they do worse over there than punch people in the face.

Police raided three teachers colleges on Monday in the western state of Michoacan, where dozens of students had been hijacking buses and delivery trucks for a week to protest curriculum changes.
Masked protesters battled police with rocks and fireworks. Student involved in the campus takeovers burned a dozen trucks and buses before authorities swept in, detaining 176 strikers. Ten police officers were injured, three seriously, the Michoacan state government reported.
The standoff at the teachers colleges began over a week ago, when students seized the campuses to protest plans to require them to take English and computer science courses. The protesters say the colleges are meant to prepare teachers for rural areas where basic skills are more of a priority.

If you want this to come to America, just keep voting for Democrats and keep the borders open.


Israel’s latest export: Border security fences

July 30, 2012

why don’t they consult the Lebanese Judo team at the Olympics?

(Carl) The United States and India are both interested in learning about Israel’s border security fences according to a report in Monday’s Jerusalem Post.

A growing number of countries are flocking to Israel to study border security as the Defense Ministry works to complete the construction of a physical and technological barrier along the Egyptian border.
In August, a delegation from India will arrive to study the various technologies used by the IDF to secure the borders with the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Egypt, and which could be implemented as part of India’s own fence with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

India is interested in beefing up its border security to prevent future incidents like the Mumbai attacks in 2008.
The Indian press reported Sunday on a tunnel that had been discovered under the border with Pakistan in the contested Kashmir region.
Another country closely following Israel’s decisions on border security is the US, which is building a barrier along its border with Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security is, for example, testing the ELM-2112 family of persistent ground surveillance radars, developed by Elta Systems, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, and used by the IDF to detect intruders before they reach the border.
Five different versions detect individuals at ranges from 300 m. up to 20 km., and vehicles at up to 40 km.
The radars feature four stationary antennas, each covering a 90-degree sector enabling persistent surveillance and tracking over a wide area.

Of course, none of those countries will have to deal with a Supreme Court that knows nothing about security but dictates the fence’s route. Nor will they have to worry about the International Court in the Hague, or various bodies of the United Nations getting involved and condemning them.


Obama bullies America with a little help South of the Border

September 16, 2011

Outrageous extortion. the cynicism is disgusting. Obama and Holder want to encourage people south of the border to be slaves to a black market smugglers economy in an effort to tar the reputation of their own citizens in Arizona. completely exploitative and hateful. We should be encouraging our neighbors toward good behavior. Instead we encourage our neighbors to create a nation lynch mob.


human-rights groups report that soldiers loyal to Gaddafi were rounding up people and forcing them onto boats at gunpoint.

August 23, 2011

…When NATO bombardments against Libya began, Gaddafi vowed to “unleash an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration” on Europe. And the ships have been arriving from Libya since. REDRAW IMAGE : via Newsweek and h/t elderofziyon.blogspot.com This is what Europe gets for it’s Arabist slant. This is what the world gets for putting Libya on the Human rights Council. and yet today that UK Guardian is critical of Israel and their need for borders. Ha’aretz has an op-ed by an Arab: h/t elderofziyon.blogspot.com

[I]n Syria, another Arab Nakba is taking place before our eyes. This Nakba is the lot of the Syrian people. But this time, those behind the Nakba are not Zionists. They aren’t Jews or French or godless British or Americans. Neither the Little Zionist Satan nor the Great American Satan is behind this Nakba. This time, the Satan is Arab, flesh of our flesh. When thousands of Arab citizens – men, women and children – are massacred, when many others flee an Arab country because they fear an Arab regime with pretensions to waving the flag of Arab nationalism, then this so-called nationalism becomes dubious and ought to raise questions. This is all the more the case when non-Arab Turkey is the country to which people are fleeing. Yes, the same Turkey that is regularly mentioned in Arab national discourse as the height of defilement and the source of all Arab ills. And all because of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over the Arabs for hundreds of years and to which Arab nationalists have long attributed all the falterings of the Arab world. Ha’aretz has an op-ed by an Arab: h/t elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Soldiers loyal to Gaddafi are rounding up people and forcing them onto boats at gunpoint.

July 2, 2011

…When NATO bombardments against Libya began, Gaddafi vowed to “unleash an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration” on Europe. And the ships have been arriving from Libya since. REDRAW RAFTS or SOLDIERS details and story from Newsweek and  h/t Elder Ziyon