Tag Archives: Immigration

When Libertarians Attack!

The enemy of liberty has been found. Now it’s only a matter of exposing the monster for what it is, and it shall die from humiliation.

That monster is — conservatism.

It seems conservatism is an ideology, like communism or Nazism, that demands a powerful, centralized government, a police state, regulation over every aspect of an individual’s life, and a militaristic foreign policy.

Or so says libertarian author and blogger Tom Mullen. His book Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? claims to expose conservatism as the ugly and vicious love-child of those ancient apologists for despots, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke.

Wait, what? Edmund Burke?

It takes only a cursory look at Mullen’s assertions to see just how sloppy and poorly researched they are. In doing so, I will let conservatives define conservatives, rather than libertarians. Seems only fair.

First, let’s consider how ludicrous it is to claim conservatism was co-founded by Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke. In fact, Hobbes belonged to a camp of political science that was directly opposed to Burke’s. Hobbes was a rationalist philosopher. Rationalists, as Michael Spicer explains in The Founders, The Constitution, and Public Administration: A Conflict in World Views, view human reason as sovereign. Reason, say the rationalists, is the ultimate authority on how humans should conduct themselves and organize society. Rationalists believe man can perfect himself and create utopia on earth. Because reason is the same everywhere, its principles apply to all peoples. Spicer observes that “rationalists distrust ideas derived from customs and traditions,” and therefore customs and traditions “are seen as impediments to obtaining true knowledge and must be swept aside.”

That’s why rationalist philosophers look to violence, whether by revolution or state-sanctioned force, to sweep out those musty old traditions that impede their programs.

Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was an anti-rationalist. As Spicer explains in his book, anti-rationalists do not believe human nature can be perfected. Instead, anti-rationalists “see the world, particularly the world of human affairs, as simply too complex and hence too unpredictable for any one mind, however wise, to comprehend and control.” For that reason, anti-rationalist philosophers look to established customs, traditions, and institutions as the most reliable guides to human conduct.

I cannot improve on this summary of Burke’s thought from the Edmund Burke Institute:

Burke is commonly regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his speeches and writings, he articulated the concept of an organic society: a social order that is sacred, natural, historical and traditional. He believed that social change was best achieved when eschewing abstract thought divorced from experience; instead, he favored renewal of the polity in harmony with a regard for individual liberty, respect for the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions and a concern for the greater good of the community. His political theory can best be summarized by his most famous phrase: “Society is a contract between the past, the present and those yet unborn.”

Traditional, organic society, then, is the foundation of order. Russell Kirk argued that traditional society is the only — the ONLY — source of our rules for mutual interaction — in other words, our rights:

Traditions are not abstractions; they are particular beliefs and customs closely related to private life and faith. The American Republic has its traditions, and so has the Cambodian Kingdom; but traditions are not created by political authority, and ought not to be debased into party slogans.

Only for the past century and a half has the word “tradition” been employed to signify “ancient customs” or “established habits of life in society.” Edmund Burke, for instance, writing in the last years of the eighteenth century, used the word “prescription” to convey these meanings, rather than the word “tradition.”

When we speak of tradition in America, then, generally we mean prescriptive social habits, prejudices, customs, and political usages which most people accept with little question, as an intellectual legacy from their ancestors.

The stable of rationalist philosophers includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Irving Kristol. Rationalists believe in the sovereign individual, whose chief concern is economic, and from that assumption, they derive their advocacy of the unitary, consolidated state; open borders; economic globalization; and the eradication of all traditional restraints on individual choice.

Among the notable anti-rationalists are David Hume, Adam Smith, and Joseph de Maistre. Anti-rationalists believe in the social nature of man, whose chief concern is the preservation and well-being of one’s culture, and from that foundation, they argue for small, culturally based political units; mediating institutions, such as families, churches, and voluntary associations to shelter and nurture the isolated individual; border security to insure demographic continuity; economic nationalism to protect jobs; and respect for traditional morality, which strengthens families and communities.

Mullen’s sloppiness is most apparent — and grating — in his conflation of neoconservatives and conservatives. Neoconservatives, despite their misleading name, are rationalists who view America as a “creedal nation” rather than a nation founded on Western traditions. Neocons base their ideology on Trotsky’s strategy of the “permanent revolution,” which called for supporting socialism in other countries to protect socialism in the USSR. So when Neocon handpuppet George W. Bush launched his US-led “global democratic revolution” beginning with Iraq, he argued that exporting democracy would help protect democracy in the US. When real conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, and Sam Francis aired their objections to Bush’s crusade, National Review’s David Frum denounced them as “unpatriotic conservatives.” Nevertheless, Mullen equates “militarism” as a defining conservative value.

There’s also an amusing aspect of Mullen’s intellectual confusion. On the basis of a few quotes, Mullen claims Edmund Burke fundamentally agreed with Thomas Hobbes, despite Burke’s radically different politics. While Burke believed in an organic society, Hobbes argued that man is not a social animal. Hobbes even went so far as to claim that society could not exist without a powerful government. The foundation of conservatism is that culture precedes government. Despite this breathtaking contradiction, Mullen frequently (obsessively?) uses Hobbes to discredit conservatism. Yet, Mullen applauds John Locke as one of the good guys, despite Locke’s frequent citation of Hobbes and partial agreement with him.

Why is this important? If we are to defend liberty, we have to understand where it came from, how it can be preserved, and what threatens it. Today we are faced with an out-of-control and self-serving central government that is busily importing a compliant Third-World population. Libertarians such as Mullen claim to defend liberty, but vocally support open borders and economic globalism, the same double-edged sword the ruling elite wields against us, its subjects. Without a Western majority, we cannot hope to preserve Western standards of behavior and governance.

Bernie Sanders Opposes Open Borders!

Weaver’s laws: 1. To advance conservative goals, often one must oppose conventional conservative positions.

2. Conservatives share some common interest with the libertarian-right but also with the socialist-left. And we oppose one another in other areas.

3. Mass immigration is unaffordable if employers are forced to pay workers well.

4. Americans, especially nonwhite Americans, will only tolerate a great wealth gap if their voting rights are rescinded.

5. A wealth imbalance serves big government interests by creating demand for big government “solutions”.

6. It is better to correct the wealth imbalance sooner rather than later. More damage (immigration) will be done if waiting later.

7. Between guns and butter, butter is better. And the police state is less likely without perpetual war.

In a recent interview, Bernie Sanders defends the nation-state (in a relative sense) and stands athwart open-borders:

Bernie Sanders:

Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.

It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.

This is yet further proof that the libertarians and finance-types are a major enemy of conservatives at this time. The conservative-libertarian alliance applies only to foreign policy, the NSA, gun rights, Department of Education, states rights, and similar specific areas. Conservatives also share common interests with the “socialist left” in other specific areas.

Certainly the state and “socialism” are a threat, but reducing immigration is also important. Mass immigration cannot be supported if companies are required to pay workers well.

Republicans who denounce “socialism” tend to support mega “defence” spending and America-last trade while standing weak on immigration. And it has been unions, with all their negatives, that have at least stood for America-first trade.

If we had opposed libertarians back in the 60s, or even the 90s, perhaps we wouldn’t have “lost” America. Paying workers reasonable wages is better than mass immigration.

The coming increased socialism in America is a terrible evil, but it’s an inevitable correction to the wealth imbalance. The sooner the US corrects, the less the damage (immigration) will be.

It is noteworthy that Obama also ran on improving the middle class (including America-first trade), only to exacerbate the wealth gap with immigration, America-last trade, and QE. A wealth imbalance bolsters DC’s power, increases the demand for big government solutions. So, it is advantageous to DC to grab more power in the name of reducing the wealth gap while acting oppositely, blaming Wall Street (or another fall guy), and ever seizing more power to “fix” things.

I don’t necessarily believe in Bernie Sanders, but we’ve seen repeatedly how “centrists” serve Wall Street interests – and on foreign policy, Likud interests. It seems a better gamble to go with the “socialist left” than with centrists of either party. If Trump, Webb, or Santorum can’t win, then Sanders might be the next-best alternative for conservatives.

News Flash: We’ve Been Betrayed by Establishment Conservatives

As Paul Gottfried pointed out recently, “No one on the Left sounds as unhinged as ‘conservative’ journalists like Max Boot (Furling the Confederate flag is just the start). Or for that matter, Jeff Jacoby (The Confederate flag is anti-American).” And Gottfried is right – it’s not just Establishment Conservatives in the media who are attacking their own base – the most shrill, hysterical slander against Southern heritage has come from “conservative” Republicans in office. For example, here’s Gottfried again in a piece entitled “The NeoCons’ Confederate Problem.” And if you have the stomach for it, watch Republican Jenny Horne screech that the “symbol of hate” flying on the South Carolina capital grounds MUST be removed:

The mania against all things Southern has made a lot of folks realize they have no representation in government. Elected officials who claim to be conservatives actually represent no one but the powers that be. We’ve been stabbed in the back too many times, whether it’s been the issue of same-sex “marriage,” abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, Muslim immigration to this country, citizen surveillance, you name it, and we, the people, are always on the losing end.

A little witticism has popped up online in response. Establishment Conservatives are ridiculed as “cuckservatives.” The term blends the word “cuckold,” a man who’s faithful to his unfaithful wife, with “conservative.” Like all good political jokes, it serves up the truth with a side dish of humor. “Cuckservatives” may claim to represent conservatism, but actually advance leftist and Establishment interests because they have embraced the leftist worldview.

Is the term fitting? Consider this: What do authoritarian leftists do when challenged? They do not debate, but attack, and their go-to position is that only a racist, white supremacist, neo-nazi would DARE question their noble agenda. The most extreme example would be the “anti-racist” thugs who physically attack those who fail to think correctly. The more “respectable” leftists do the same thing, only without the gutter language. For example, here’s Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center slamming Pat Buchanan. At 1:45 into this video, Beirich says: “Neocons for the most part in white-supremacist circles are identified as Jews. So it’s actually an expression of anti-Semitism when he has material like that about Neocons. It comes from his right-wing, crazy, anti-Semitic views.”

Compare that language to that used by the so-called “conservative” Ace of Spades: “The word “#cuckservative” is being used as a banner-of-convenience by a conglomeration of several types of people, who range from what I’d call mere nativists to actual, hard-core, Nazi-flag-in-their-twitter profile white supremacists.”

Robert Stacy McCain, another Establishment Conservative, uses the same terms in his slam against the #Cuckservative revolt: “Thus, also, you don’t necessarily have to like Jews or be pro-Israel to be my friend. But if you start making noises about “international bankers” or “neocons” or otherwise signaling to me that you have a paranoid hostility toward Jews — what I call conspiratorial anti-semitism — well, no, I can’t hang with that.” And just to rub a little more salt into the wound, McCain’s assistant blogger, Wombat-socho, bragged the next day that he’d banned several commenters on the McCain blog, in effect, repelling what he called a “flood of racist/white nationalist/Nazi idiots.”

As a recent Washington Post article on this growing movement has noted, “‘#Cuckservative’ is a full-scale revolt.” For those who have had enough betrayal, and are sick and tired of always losing because we trusted Republican politicians, the “#Cuckservative” meme is at least a start.

David Stockman: Immigration Laws Fill US Prisons

In a recent “Chart of the Day“, David Stockman highlights how US prisons would be “emptied” if not for drug and immigration laws. Immigration is not the second highest percentage in his chart, but it’s highlighted to imply that immigration laws are unnecessary.

This is typical of libertarians, typical of financial types, and typical of “socialists” like George Soros.

Is libertarianism truly the “opposite” of socialism? No.

Raimondo on Trump; Hillary Feigns at Populism

Justin Raimondo asks, “Donald Trump: A False Flag Candidate?

The right-libertarian’s question is understandable considering Trump’s aggressive foreign policy and ties to the Clintons. Also, Trump, like every other candidate, must pander to the Israel lobby (and military-industrial complex), which wants war. Even Rand Paul panders to Israel.

Trump did, however, oppose Dubya’s Iraq War. So, there is hope.

Repeatedly it’s said Trump is incapable of winning the Republican nomination. Who then is better?

Trump is popular, because he’s the only candidate who speaks for Middle America. Without him, we’re better off with a Democrat (to rally against). Additionally, if Trump truly cannot win, his presence at least forces legitimate populist concerns into the debate.

Whom now does Raimondo support? Is he back with Rand Paul? Paul has been busy supporting marijuana legalisation… Talk about fitting a stereotype, appearing like a false-flag.

Because no Republican, aside from Trump, defends Middle America, Hillary has filled the gap. Like Obama, she’ll talk the talk, but she’ll walk in the opposite direction. Why would a Democrat reduce the wealth gap anyway, if the wealth gap itself provides Democrats with votes and serves donor interests? To be clear, if the US middle class were large, Americans would have no need for Democrats.

We see a repeating trend of Democrats feigning to be populists. It wins elections. Democrats never serve the American worker, but they do win his vote.

Hillary is also a war hawk.

It’s perhaps noteworthy that no minorities are leading Democratic contenders (Clinton, Sanders, Biden). So, there’s no Obama to rally against as America’s demographic transformation concludes. Raimondo’s shocked at Trump’s “racism”, but in truth Trump hasn’t said anything remotely “racist”, was only taken out of context. As America becomes more diverse though, racial identity will grow in political importance.

The Growing Right-Wing Support for Ron Unz’s Minimum Wage Hike

Browsing VDARE, I stumbled upon part of an Unz article: “Rightwingers for Higher Wages”.

In the article, Unz brags that he started a revolution on the minimum wage position, but it took a couple years for the blogosphere to convert to the new position. Unz also notes that more widespread right-wing support would see a minimum wage hike’s passage. So, essentially it is red state that is blocking a hike.

My comments:

Originally when reading Unz’s proposal, I was concerned by Unz’s desire for higher quality immigrants. In the US: whites, Asians, and Jews possess the best jobs, because they are the most capable. These three groups make up the US elite. Among Americans, they possess the best genes for intelligence, and their ability grants them some amount of power and opportunity for power.

Mass immigration floods into the US millions of low-skill, likely low-quality workers. These immigrants vote for wealth redistribution, but they and their descendants lack the ability to move up the ladder.

The US will change with time, but largely those with ability and ambition rule over those who do not. I do realise, however, a Latino will more readily serve a capable Latino over a capable white.

If Unz’s minimum wage hike is passed, and the quality of immigrants into the US improves: There is a risk that high-quality immigrants will mix with high-quality white Americans, robbing us of those genes. And there is a risk that quality immigrants will move into the US elite, taking a larger share of power.

That said, Unz’s proposal is likely best for the US. Mass immigration continues unabated, and Unz’s proposal would slow the flow.

It’s depressing to think on how it has been the conservative movement that has unintentionally supported mass immigration all these years. Had we supported a minimum wage hike in the 1960s, the US demographic transformation would have been much slower.

Timing is another concern. The US economy is in poor shape today, and a minimum wage hike could precipitate, or be blamed for precipitating, an economic depression as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act is blamed for the Great Depression. On the whole, trade tariffs and a minimum wage are both positives for the US, but timing and public perception matter.

What makes Unz’s proposal superior to direct immigration reduction is Unz is backed by the greed of America’s poor. They would support a minimum wage hike. So, to put it another way: Unz’s proposal is passable if only it can be explained to Red State America, whose interests it serves.

May Day is International Workers’ Day

Today, the left is demonstrating, as the left has done on this otherwise pretty day for — well, a long time. Here are two of the left’s demands:

End militarization of the border & police departments

Legalization, not deportations

In other words, the left wants millions more poor, exploitable workers in this country who will depress wages and working conditions, while taking jobs from American blacks — the same thing George Soros and the Koch Brothers want.

President-elect Obama promised that he would work to build consensus between those who’ve historically fought each other. His hope was that “we’ll be able to move together effectively as a team.” By golly, I’d say he’s done it.

Message to Americans: Resistance is Futile

The oh-so-politically correct Charlotte Observer just published an op-ed by two members of the Charlotte Immigration Integration Task Force. Stefan Latorre and Emily Zimmern co-authored the piece, entitled Charlotte, start now integrating immigrants. The message is direct: The Charlotte region is undergoing “seismic demographic shifts” which “translate into a time of dramatic change.”

Can’t argue that point — history is full of examples of the dramatic changes resulting from demographic shifts, including Lebanon, Kosovo, and Tibet.

But Latorre and Zimmern assure us that the seismic demographic shift heading our way will bring nothing but prosperity. That shift is inevitable anyway, so we might as well enjoy it.

Co-author Stefan Latorre will certainly benefit from more mass migration from Latin America. He’s an immigration attorney born in Colombia and raised in Miami. He now has law offices in Charlotte; Monroe; Hickory; Greensboro; Columbia, South Carolina; and Jacksonville, Florida. So we know his views are not only well-informed, but totally without bias.

Emily Zimmern is the executive director of the Levine Museum of the No New South. She’s also held leadership positions in the United Jewish Appeal. Interestingly, the UJA does not believe in open borders for Israel. In fact, it is dedicated to preserving Israel as a Jewish state, even if that involves the blockade and military assault on Gaza. The United Jewish Appeal’s stance is so rigid, it’s angered Jews who reject Israel’s harsh measures:

Members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) gathered outside the offices of the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies in New York today, criticizing the group’s support for Israel’s policy towards Gaza, including the blockade of the coastal territory and the ongoing military assault. …

The JVP petition is also addressed to Jerry Silverman, the head of the umbrella group Jewish Federations of North America, which UJA is a part of. But when JVP members tried to set up a meeting with Silverman last week, the Federations had a blunt message: there would be no in-person meeting. The umbrella group said they refuse to be in “direct communication” with JVP.

“Your ongoing support for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel render any kind of direct communication, beyond this email, impossible,” said Federations’ Managing Director of Communications Rebecca Dinar in an e-mail to JVP. “If you alter those tactics, accept Israel as a Jewish State and explicitly condemned BDS we would be open to arranging a meeting.”

I have no problem with Zimmern or anyone else defending Israel’s right to protect its identity. But the hypocrisy and self-promotion of the co-authors of the Observer piece is troublesome.

Conservatives Should Support Free University Education

As conservatives like to say, “If you subsidise something, you’ll get more of it; if you tax something, you’ll get less of it.”

Often it’s argued immigration is needed to fund government spending and to provide cheap labour. This is to say, our current system makes immigration profitable to the powers-that-be. Perhaps the solution to opposing immigration then is to socialise costs for the youngest, make immigration more costly for the powers-that-be. Grant free education, for example: not only public schooling but undergrad, graduate, even medical school. Infrastructure is also stressed by immigration, so a tax could be added here as well. Add these taxes to employers on a per employee basis while reducing the overall tax burden, so that employer taxes are linked with number of employees.

A direct increase in the minimum wage would accomplish the same thing. Yes, unemployment would result; but thwarting immigration is even more important.

In other words, perhaps the solution is to act nearly opposite to what conservatives have traditionally attempted. The justification could be that everyone deserves a fair start in life, and funding could come from a dramatic cut to “defence” spending (which could produce a budget surplus if deep enough.) Americans might be motivated to cut one source of spending (defence) if promised the reward of another source of spending (education).

Traditionally conservatives support “defence” spending and otherwise fiscal discipline. And traditionally conservatives lose. Perhaps “socialism” then is a more promising route.

Regarding the current benefits of immigration: The primary benefactors are employers who acquire cheap labour. Taxes are not increased much by immigration. The notorious Richwine study revealed: “[I]n 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.” And since most immigrants have a low level of education, they are expected to consume more than is paid into government in the long-term, and likely in the near-term as well. So, immigrants are not supporting America’s tax burden much.