Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

March 13, 2016

Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

by Fjordman

Fjordman speaks the unspeakable.

(Editor’s Note: I first rolled this grenade into the room in December 2010 to gauge the reaction from readers. Now look at what has happened relating to Islam in the last two years. But does Islam pose a serious threat to any state that secedes and becomes a sovereign nation? Let us know your comments.)

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky… I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

Hassan Moussa, who has worked as an imam at the largest mosque in the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn’t match the text as translated in Swedish. A journalist warned that “Sweden’s mosques are slowly but surely being taken over” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, Moussa’s recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved giving more power to imams and having a “zero tolerance for Islamophobia.”

Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet dictates anything similar.

It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on Earth, which is “respected” by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban “Islamophobia” across the world, also in the West.

Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in the Western world. Even Der Führer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad’s personal habits and example in minute detail.

Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the “living Koran.” John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro-Islamic books in existence, states:

“Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions….His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”

According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims at all times. Any perceived “insult,” however slight, could immediately trigger violent reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our genetalia screened and checked at our airports.

If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for “waging a war against Islam,” because his “tribe” is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab’s terror attack in Stockholm. There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims.

Before the general elections in 2006 the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but essentially demanded, separate family laws for Muslims; that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmö already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is “good for integration.”); a “mosque in every municipality,” built through interest-free loans made available by local municipalities to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect for” Muslims; separation between boys and girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural mass media should take even stronger steps to combat “Islamophobia” in the general public.

These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands nothing less.

But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to reason with them.

Their religion also states that Muslims are the “best of peoples” – the true master race – and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so.

So why don’t you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and permanently removed from all Western nations.

Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before because we don’t fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not defend yourself properly then you have already lost.

Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our midst will severely limit our freedom of action.

Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to be dealt with.

The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are loyal to us and our nations.

Courtesy www.Europenews.dk


Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

January 28, 2016

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

by Russell D. Longcore

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism will give rise to societal problems as states secede from the Union. Better to start discussing this now rather than wait until the days after secession.

We who live in the USA…and in all the West…have had multiculturalism forced upon us since the 1960s. And while it sounds nice and friendly toward people that are different than us, there is a problem with it.

The problem is that some people who come to the USA have no intention of assimilating into the American culture. Some never learn the English language. And government eases the way for this behavior.

Most recently, America is faced with the immigration of so-called “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle Eastern nations. In many instances, these people are Muslims FIRST, and as Muslims, they are taught in the mosques that Western culture must be eliminated because all non-Muslims are infidels.

So, now what?

In my writings about The Free Republic of North America (aka FRONA), I have taken positions that promote maximum personal liberty and property rights for individuals. But I will admit openly that this issue of multiculturalism continues to cause me philosophical nightmares.

My first default position is to welcome any human being above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter.

I struggle with any other restrictions on citizenship. For example, should FRONA prohibit Muslims from citizenship or residency? We know up front that Muslims believe that all people that are non-Muslims are infidels, and that Islam should erase all other cultures from the earth. So every Muslim allowed to come to FRONA has either overtly or tacitly agreed with their religion’s teachings…else why be a Muslim? Therefore, knowing up front that every Muslim has the potential to take action against the FRONA government, the FRONA culture and the FRONA citzenry, should FRONA allow them to settle in our new nation?

One argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be that a person who has committed no offense against the People or the government is innocent, and should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be handled within the Charter. The Charter could be written with a clause with restrictions built in.

On the other side…would it be acceptable to simply prohibit ALL Muslims…Sunni, Shia or whatever…from residing in FRONA or becoming citizens? Doing so makes sure that people who are avowed to your destruction are not allowed to legally reside in FRONA. If FRONA prohibits Muslims, then a mechanism of a background check would have to be created to check out applicants prior to acceptance for citizenship.

If FRONA decides to ban Muslims from residency and citizenship, it would be necessary to remove all people of the Muslim religion from within FRONA’s territorial borders. Now we begin talking about deporting people who own property and/or businesses already existing in that state that becomes FRONA. This opens up another can of worms that is antithetical to individual liberty and property rights.

I do not see where FRONA can be pro-liberty and anti-liberty at the same time.

Therefore, at this time, I am re-stating my earlier position for FRONA, in which any person above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter is eligible to become a FRONA citizen.

I am far more concerned with protecting individual liberty and property rights than any other single thing. I believe that if FRONA can be formed as the freest place on the planet, with sound money and a roaring economy…we will be so attractive to the rest of the world that many of the societal problems plaguing the rest of the world will be avoided and unknown in FRONA. And that includes the issue with Islam.

But if problems with Islam did arise, FRONA as a nation could handle it. Remember that there are plenty of nations around the world where roving men don’t rape women, blow themselves up in marketplaces, or set IEDs off that kill innocents. America has been so far immune to the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Islam. Muslims seem to blow each other up in their own nations, not here.

Whenever there is a societal issue that demands attention, ALWAYS DEFAULT TO LIBERTY. Remember that NO ONE has ever lived in a place like The Free Republic of North America. Let’s try LIBERTY first.


The Illegals: Another Angle

February 14, 2012

by Fred Reed

From many Americans, though from fewer who have any idea what they are talking about, you could get the idea that illegal immigrants are brown sludge, the lazy and shiftless, the least intelligent of their countries, those unable or unwilling to make a living at home, who therefore go the the US to live on welfare. A certain paucity of logic informs much of this. If they come to live on welfare, how do they take the jobs of Americans, a crime of which they are regularly accused? But I note this only in passing. I do not mean to suggest that logic or knowledge have a place in politics.

The fact is that the illegals come to work, and do, well and hard, which is why conservative patriotic busnessmen block attempts to restrict immigration.

Which would be easy to do. Again, they come to work. Don’t hire them, and they won’t come. Illegals don’t take jobs from Americans. Americans give them the jobs.

But, whatever you think of the Latin hordes, it may be interesting to know a little about them. Let’s wing it.

Consider a man of twenty living in the slums of , say, Tegucigalpa with his wife and two small children. The local economy is a disaster. He can barely feed his kids, much less send them to school. “Barely feed them” is not a concept many Americans understand. It means that their stomachs hurt, that their physical development is threatened, that they cry and ask for food. Any parent who doesn’t do anything possible to feed them, to include robbing banks, is irresponsible. Ask yourself what you would do.

So Pablo and Maria talk it over, and decide that the only way out is for him to go to the US, work, send money home and, just possibly, eventually bring the family to America. There are good reasons why Americans might not approve his plan. From Pablo’s point of view, watching his kids starve, it is the only plan.

Getting from Honduras to San Francisco or South Carolina is dangerous, very dangerous. Crossing the Guat border means braving the Mexican police, who are brutal and corrupt. Typically the migrants go north through Mexico by riding on the roofs of cargo trains. It is not for the weak. On the trains they are subject to attacks by gangs, as for example Mara Salvatrucha, products of Reagan’s romantic meddling of El Salvador. The “Mara” is from “marabunta,” a swarm of army ants. The Maras are savage, sadistic, and live by robbing migrants of the money they have saved for the coyote, often beating them into cripples and raping the women. I would much rather do a tour on the ground in Afghanistan than ride those trains. It is safer. In Afghanistan you eat, do not have to drink from filthy pools beside the tracks, and do not spend nights on top of a box car in jeans and tee shirt during a sleet storm. Call the migrants anything you like, but leave out
“gutless.”

Women also make this trip, for the same reason: to send money home for their kids. Don’t, please, tell me about oppressed co-eds at Dartmouth.

So Pablo, perhaps months later, gets to Laredo. Let us say that he started out with $2000 US, which is roughly what a coyote costs, and has managed not to be robbed of it. If he has it, it was probably put together by his extended family by forgoing shoes, food, what have you. He now finds himself in a city that preys on people like Pablo. He has little idea what he is doing. Twenty years in a slum in Teguce doesn’t make you wise in the ways of the Mexican-American frontier. The police will rob him, perhaps torturing him to find out where he has stashed the money, if indeed he has any, and send him back to Honduras. Nasty gangs will do the same, except for deporting him. Migrants drown trying to swim the Rio Bravo.

Several ways exist of crossing into the US. You can find a desert crossing poorly guarded and hope not to be killed by rattlesnakes or get lost and die of thirst. In the Mexican press I have read of tunnels thorough which 150 illegals pass per night. At $2k each, that’s $300,000 a night in a great tax bracket. Or a coyote can get you across and, if he doesn’t just take your money and disappear, he may put you into a van, and off you go. Bingo.

Once away from the border, things get easier for Pablo. He may work a few days to get bus fare to Raleigh-Durham, where he has a friend. With the friend’s help, he gets a job in construction. Here the American national hypocrisy works to his advantage. The construction firm of course knows perfectly well that Pablo is undocumented. Companies love illegals. It means that they can pay him dirt, no benefits, no Social Security, and he can’t complain without getting deported. In any contest between money and patriotism, money wins. American immigration officials catch just enough Pablos to keep the rest intimidated, but not enough to reduce the supply of cheap labor. It is a sweetheart deal for businessmen.

Pablo may or may not be a model uncitizen, may drink too much, may use drugs, or go into crime. Or he may not. He is very likely to send money, substantial amounts of it, back to Tegucigalpa. In Jalisco, where I live in Mexico, remittances from migrants are a crucial part of the economy. Pablo also is not unlikely to begin planning to bring his family to the US.

Family values. Putting his life on the line for his children. The work ethic. All that.

Is massive immigration good for the US? I doubt it. Are all the illegals wonderful people? No. In the long run will there be a happy ending? I don’t know; to date there hasn’t been.

Yet men and women who will claw and save for a coyote, and ride that godawful train, at dead serious risk of being raped, robbed, tortured and beaten into medical curiousities left beside the tracks, who will cross into a hostile country whose language they do not know, and live in constant fear of being caught, all to feed their families and just maybe give them a better life in a better place…I think they deserve other than utter contempt.

All original material © Violeta de Jesus Gonzalez Munguia
www.FredOnEverything.net


Whose Fuse Is Shorter?

November 28, 2011

by Peter Schiff

(Editor’s note: My money (constantly inflating, value-losing Federal Reserve notes) is on Washington for the shortest fuse. Washington keeps proving that it has no will or ability to solve its own fiscal problems. The nations of the world are fed up with Washington’s high-handed imperialism and would like nothing more than to watch…and even help…Washington crash and burn. They bear no ill will to the American people. They just despise DC.)

With fiscal time bombs ticking in both Europe and the United States, the pertinent question for now seems to be which will explode first. For much of the past few months it looked as if Europe was set to blow. But Angela Merkel’s refusal to support a Federal Reserve style bailout of European sovereigns and her recent statement the she had no Hank Paulson style fiscal bazooka in her handbag, has lowered the heat. In contrast, the utter failure of the Congressional Super Committee in the United States to come up with any shred of success in addressing America’s fiscal problems has sparked a renewed realization that America’s fuse is dangerously short.

Chancellor Merkel has been emphatic that European politicians not be given a monetary crutch similar to the one relied on by their American counterparts. Her laudable goal, much derided on the editorial pages of the New York Times, is to defuse Europe’s debt bomb with substantive budget reforms, and as a result to make the euro “the strongest currency in the world.” Much has been made of the poorly received auction today of German Government bonds, with some saying the lack of demand (which pushed yields on 10-year German Bonds past 2% – hardly indicative of panic selling) is evidence of investor unease with Merkel’s economic policies. I would argue the opposite: that many investors still think that Merkel is bluffing and that eventually Germany will print and stimulate like everyone else. It is likely for this reason that yields on German debt have increased modestly.

In contrast, the U.S. is crystal clear in its intention to ignore its debt problems. With the failure of the Super Committee this week it actually became official. American politicians will not, under any circumstances willingly confront our underlying debt crisis. While the outcome of the Super Committee shouldn’t have come as a great surprise, the sheer dysfunction displayed should serve as a wakeup call for those who still harbor any desperate illusions. Some members of Congress, such as John McCain, have even come out against the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that would go into effect in January 2013. Expect more politicians of both parties to cravenly follow suit.

Over the next decade, the U.S. government expects to spend more than $40 trillion. Even if the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts are allowed to go through, the amount totals just 3% of the expected outlays. In a masterstroke of hypocritical accounting, $216 billion of these proposed “cuts” merely represent the expected reductions in interest payments that would result from $984 billion of actual cuts. These cuts won’t make a noticeable dent in our projected deficits, which if history can be any guide, will likely rise by much more as economic reality proves far gloomier than government statisticians predict. Finally, the cuts are not cuts in the ordinary sense of the word, where spending is actually reduced. They are cuts in the baseline, which means spending merely increases less than what was previously budgeted.

In the mean time, the prospect of sovereign default in Europe is driving “safe” haven demand for the dollar. So contrary to the political blame game, Europe’s problems are actually providing a temporary boost to America’s bubble economy. However, a resolution to the crisis in Europe could reverse those flows. And given the discipline emanating from Berlin, a real solution is not out of the question. If confidence can be restored there, each episodic flight to safety may be less focused on the U.S. dollar. Instead, risk-averse investors may prefer a basket of other, higher-yielding, more fiscally sustainable currencies.

The irony is that Europe is actually being criticized for its failure to follow America’s lead. This misplaced criticism is based on the mistaken belief that our approach worked. It did not. Sure, it may have delayed the explosion, but only by assuring a much larger one in the future. In the mean time, many have mistaken the delay for success.

However, if Merkel’s hard line works, and real cuts follow, Europe will be praised for blazing a different trail. As a result the euro could rally and the dollar sinks. Commodity prices will rise, putting even more upward pressure on consumer prices and interest rates in the United States.

Any significant reversal of the current upward dollar trend could provide a long awaited catalyst for nations holding large dollar reserves to diversify into other currencies. My guess is that Merkel understands the great advantage the U.S. has enjoyed as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. I believe she covets that prize for Europe, and based on her strategy, it is clearly within her reach.

There is an old saving that one often does not appreciate what one has until it’s lost. The nearly criminal foolishness now on display in Washington may finally force the rest of the world to cancel our reserve currency privileges. The loss may give Americans a profound appreciation of this concept.

Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

Copyright © 2011 Euro Pacific Capital


The Tragedy of Immigration Enforcement

June 5, 2011

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

(Editor’s Note: Lew proves that government is a thousand-armed monster, and at the end of each arm is a stinger. There is no way to interact with the monster without getting stung. Rather than deal with the millions of immigrants who are actually breaking the law, DC goes after the businesses who hire them. DC doesn’t have to chase the business owner…he is in a fixed location. Plus, even if the business goes through the process of trying to verify legal status, forged papers are easily created. So a business could do everything right and still be destroyed by Washington. That’s the country you live in folks. Don’t you think secession could remedy this disaster?)

Here’s the problem. If you give government a job to do, even one that seems justified in the abstract, it will use its power to make a terrible mess in practice. This is true in a host of areas from welfare to warfare, but it is even true in the complicated area of immigration.

Just imagine this. The owners of Chuy’s Mesquite Broiler in Phoenix and 13 other locations around western states have been kidnapped from their popular restaurants and dragged to jail. This will be followed by trial, and certain personal bankruptcy. They could face 80 years in prison. In the raid, “Homeland Security” stole their computers, their accounting and employment records, and walked out the door – just like a gang of thieves. The only difference is that these thugs operate under the cover of the law.

And what evil did these restaurateurs do? Were they poisoning people, stealing customers’ wallets, secretly running an assassination conspiracy, sending in the predator drones against people they hate, or what? To lock anyone away for life is a shocking sentence, so surely the punishment must fit the crime. Pyscho sniper-murderers have gotten less.

What they are alleged to have done is hired people who don’t have the proper bureaucratic forms filled out for them. That’s all. Nothing more. It is being done in the name of immigration enforcement and cracking down on illegals. The workers themselves are untouched by any of this. Their benefactors – and the benefactors of society – are the ones being targeted with police-state tactics.

The government is busting up a whole series of voluntary labor relationships that are designed to provide people with good food. Let us be clear: to the extent that many people object to illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with those who go to work and make an honest living doing things like working in restaurants. The problem with illegal immigration is related to other issues that drive people crazy, like going on welfare, engaging in actual (not pretend) crime, and demanding tax-funded support services.

People finding jobs to do and other wonderful commercial things is a praiseworthy aspect of immigration, legal or illegal. In fact, there are millions of jobs in this country that would simply not be done at the current price without such immigration, and this is true in a vast range of industries from housing to horticulture. American natives think too highly of themselves to accept these jobs at the market price.

And it is this very thing that government, given the power to enforce immigration statutes, wants to crack down on, not by rounding up workers, which would be bad enough, but by criminally prosecuting the business owners themselves, the people who are not only providing jobs but also providing good food for the public. The whole thing boggles the mind.

But the utilitarian will object. Yes, these tactics are rough, with results that are regrettable for property owners and those who like to dine out, but at least it helps address our nation’s problems with illegal immigration.

But will it? If mainstream employers are afraid of lifetime jail terms, they will not hire. And that leaves only marginal employers to pick up the slack. These include drug operations, fly-by-night underground businesses, gray markets, prostitution rings, and other things from the seedier side of life.

Or the result could be no employment at all, which means turning to crime itself. In other words, these efforts attempt to stop the best part of immigration and enhance the worst. For this we can thank the government.

Try to think of this issue in terms of the risk to attempting illegal immigration. No one on the other side of the border, faced with a porous fence, is thinking: I’ll take this risk only on the condition that I can go to work for Chuy’s Mesquite Broiler.

No, they will come anyway. In order to eliminate every possible job opportunity for immigrants, the Obama administration will have to jail and terrorize vast numbers, destroying the commercial life of major swaths of the country. This is a catastrophic plan that amounts to a fundamental attack on liberty, and the nationalization of the service industry. (I should add that I prefer illegal immigration to legal, since we have far too many citizens able to vote themselves other people’s property, and too few people who want to work hard for a living.)

Just as George Bush used national security as the great excuse to shred the Bill of Rights, the Obama administration is using illegal immigration as the excuse to achieve the socialist dream of bringing employer-employee relations entirely under government purview. It is a form of micro-nationalization.

And why? Socialist ideology plays a role here, and another authoritarian anti-market ideology, protectionism. But if you look closely enough at this enforcement, you will find the hand of Obama affiliated big labor unions at work behind the scenes. It’s not that they are against immigrants. The unions hate any employee who works for the going market wage. As their power and influence continues to fall, if not in DC, they are resorting to ever more desperate tactics to shore up their slipping cartel.

You can see, then, that this crack down has nothing to do with nationalism or racialism or securing the borders or anything else. It is all about bolstering the power of the state and its unions over the American economy, and making the rest of us poorer.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com.


The Inexpressibly, Unthinkably Obvious

May 18, 2011

Somber Thoughts on Race and Ethnicity

by Fred Reed

(Editor’s Note: Jared Taylor is a Yale-educated author and Editor of American Renaissance. I wrote Is It OK To Be A Racist?” back in February. Goes along with this article quite well.)

I have just read Jared Taylor’s new book, White Consciousness. The title might lead one to expect racial ranting, but there is none. It is a good read. Jared deals thoughtfully with America’s changing racial and ethnic make-up and the probable consequences. He is usually painted as a hate-monger who regards his bed sheets as evening wear, wants (as Lincoln did) to send blacks back to Africa, shoot Hispanics, and blame Jews for sun spots and loose fillings. Alas, he fails to perform. The book is no more extreme than Pat Buchanan, well documented, and utterly incorrect politically. His crime is asking questions one mustn’t because the answers come up wrong.

For example, he doubts the existence, and the desirability, of racial integration, as very distinct from desegregation. It hasn’t worked, he says.

Isn’t this obvious? I ask my readers, most of whom are white, how many close black friends do you have? When did you last have them over for dinner? We talk mixing. We don’t do it.

I lived a couple of decades in Washington, DC, a city mostly black, and had many white liberal friends. They believed they believed in multiculturalism, but they—we—lived in an overwhelmingly white world: white restaurants, friends, bars, clubs, dances. I can’t remember even once being in an establishment in which the majority, or anything close to it, were black. Whites associate with whites, blacks with blacks. That’s how it is.

Jared points out that most of what we think we are supposed to think about race and ethnicity isn’t true. He notes the mandatory refrain, “Diversity is our strength,” and asks, exactly how is it our strength? I have myself wondered. Name five ways diversity has made the country stronger (without mentioning ethnic restaurants or music).

Um…ah…well…ah…urg.

The book is a curious one in that most of it is obvious though one mustn’t say it. Does not diversity just cause trouble, almost everywhere? As much as one might want it to lead to comity, it doesn’t. Consider: Shiites and Sunnis, Irish Protestants and Catholics, Hutus and Tutsis; blacks, whites and Hispanics in the US; Turks and Kurds; Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Turks and Armenians; Indians and Ugandans; Turks and Germans; Moslems and the French; Moslems and Dutch; Jews in many places; Christians and Moslems in Sudan; Chinese and Indonesians, and so on for pages. None of these groups is evil, but none mix well. Usually they kill each other.

A staple of political correctness is that groups eventually merge into happy indistinguishable citizens. Occasionally, yes, if the groups are similar and want to assimilate: The Irish and Italians in the US did. Jared points out that, whatever one might wish, it usually doesn’t happen. Sunnis and Shiites have been around since the seventh century. They celebrate diversity by exchanging car bombs. In the US, neither blacks nor Amerindians have assimilated to the dominant European culture, nor have the cultures blended.

Jared notes that the US now has fifty million Hispanics, or sixteen percent of the population, expected to rise soon to twice that, as well as thirteen percent of blacks. Now, since I live in Mexico, have a Mexican wife, and speak Spanish at home, it will be difficult to nail me with racial hatred of Hispanics. Nor do I hate blacks. But…is this going to work? Or are we going to end up with three mutually hostile countries in one land? The possibility is real. Several states, including California, have Hispanic majorities, which means that shortly they will have Hispanic governments. If the majority vote as a bloc—bingo.

Aggravating the problem is that the people who most believe that we will eventually be one big happy family are those with the least experience. They have never been in the huge, hopeless, festering slums of Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Washington, on and on and on. These are awful, culturally isolated, and not getting better. If there is an answer, no one has found it.

Americans hardly notice the cost of diversity, as they have never known anything else. Jared was born in Japan to missionary parents, went to Japanese schools, and speaks Japanese. He makes the point that in Japan there is virtually no diversity, and therefore no civil-rights acts, no forced busing, no governmental agencies counting how many of whom one hires, no voting-rights laws, no affirmative action and resulting anger. An employer simply hires the best qualified candidate. And the Japanese do not burn their cities in racial rioting.

We are what we are, a mixed nation, but need we make things worse? Unrestricted immigration may let us feel good about ourselves, but does it really have a happy ending? One maywell wonder what will follow when half of the country is either black or Hispanic.

Further, when some groups are economically and academically way below the dominant culture, hostility and separatism become almost assured. As Jared points out, blacks and Hispanics are on average scholastic disasters. In the schools the gap in achievement is large between white and black, and has proven resistant to everything: Head Start, forced busing, integrated class rooms, segregated class rooms, affirmative action, schools run entirely by blacks, or entirely by whites, and so on. Hispanics in the US are not doing a whole lot better. If the shortfall doesn’t change, it won’t matter whether it is genetic or cultural in origin.

The implications, discussion of which is verboten, are not trivial. The US depends on and rewards deployable intelligence, particularly on IQs bordering on the scary, as in 180 and up. The clearest examples are in Silicon Valley, many of them from the physics department at Stanford or Harvard. These men—almost all are men—have given the US its dominance in technology. They are not just bright, like the valedictorian in your high school. They are off-scale, almost another species.

If you follow the computer/internet racket, you know that they are overwhelmingly white, Jewish (a subset of white, granted), Chinese, Asian Indian, Korean. The black and Hispanic proportion is close to zero if not actually zero. This isn’t because of racial discrimination. Santa Clara runs on raw brains, and doesn’t care what package they come in. Google would hire a giant clam if it could program well enough.

Sez me, this is not going to lead to cheery Kum Bah Yah harmony. As the country becomes a two-tier society—it already is, but as the second tier grows rapidly in size and political potency—how is this going to work?

Jared will disappoint many by not making exterminationist recommendations. But if you want a clear exposition of what is happening, he’s worth a read.

© 2011 Fred Reed
www.FredOnEverything.net


The LEAVE Act: Better To Leave The Union

April 12, 2011

by Russell D. Longcore

One of my friends, an old curmudgeon named Jim, pointed me to an article about the LEAVE Act, currently winding its way through Congress. “The “Loophole Elimination and Verification Enforcement Act” (L.E.A.V.E…how clever!) is California Congressman Gary Miller’s offering on solving the immigration nightmare in America.

Let me see if I understand. Over time, Congress creates a labyrinthine gauntlet of immigration and naturalization laws and overlays them on the 50 states. Then they fail to enforce their own laws, causing chaos in the states. Then the Congress proposes even more laws, which are supposed to fix the volumes of immigration laws they’ve already screwed up.

It’s the perfect plan.

Remember…the US Constitution has only one phrase under Article I, Section 8 pertaining to US citizenship: “Congress shall have power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

The first problem Congress has is the concept of uniformity. DC is much more attuned to meeting the needs of the special interests that line their pockets with campaign contributions, and hire them as consultants and lobbyists when they leave the Capitol. If you can find any law that is uniform toward all affected by it, I’ll eat my hat.

Second problem is that most legal dictionaries in the USA define “naturalization” as “The process by which a foreign person becomes a U.S. citizen.” Therefore, Congress only had the power to create a process by which a foreign person could become a US citizen. The Federal Government, also known as “The United States of America,” has no authority whatsoever to create a process whereby a foreign person could become a citizen of any state. DC also has no Constitutional authority to control the borders of the states. It is simply not in the Constitution. You might pull out your copy of the Constitution and read it. I just did, and I did not find the words “border” or “borders” even once in the entire Constitution or Amendments. Perhaps I missed it. I could be wrong…it’s happened before. Recall that the southern border of the “USA” in 1789 was the southern border between the State of Georgia and Spanish Florida. The western borders of many of the States were the territories owned by France. And the northern borders of a few States lay next to Canada, owned by Great Britain.

Original 13 States

But whenever has that musty old document ever thwarted the will of Congress?

Then, in Article I, Section 9 it reads: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” Last time I checked…which was today…that paragraph has not been rewritten or amended in the 222 years since ratification of the Constitution. Do you see anything in that paragraph that provides authority for the Federal Government to regulate the numbers of foreign persons admitted to any State? No. What I see is the right to either approve or prohibit importation, not regulate the numbers that any State allows to be imported.

This is yet another example of how far from our native liberty Americans have fallen over the last one hundred years. The government schools, in lock step with the churches of America, have done a masterful job of dis-educating and mis-educating the American populace regarding individual liberty, property rights and the contents of the US Constitution. The consequence of this treasonous education is that we now have Americans that cannot even look to their grandparents for truth because the grandparents were mis-educated in schools and churches. The functional understanding of the Constitution, liberty and law that was instilled in every man and woman, merchant, farmer and laborer in 18th century America is only a distant echo of a legend of long ago.

The collective intelligence of America allows these unconstitutional bills to be introduced into Congress, debated like they actually could be lawful, and then passed into law. It’s akin to a Mafia organization deciding to enforce a protection racket on a city. And then the citizens of the city get together and argue about just how much money they are willing to pay for the protection. The solitary voices that point out that the protection racket is criminal are laughed out of the meetings. The general populace agrees to be plundered and meekly open their pocketbooks.

The States of the Union should solve their own issues of naturalization and immigration. They should notify the Federal Government that the laws enacted that supersede Constitutional authority are null and void and will not be enforced in the States. Once that’s done, the States should secede from the Union. Even better than that would be to skip the Nullification step and simply enumerate the myriad ways the United States violates the Constitution in their Ordinance of Secession and just go ahead and secede. One magnificent act of liberty done once and for all.

Dear readers, this is simply one bill of hundreds or thousands that follow the same path. The great majority of bills introduced, debated, passed and signed into Federal law are entirely unconstitutional. Out of a $3 TRILLION budget for 2011, perhaps 10% of it could be considered lawful spending. 90% is criminal theft committed by your elected officials with your permission. But America arranges the deck chairs on the Titanic and listens to the pretty music. And just like the real Titanic, there are not nearly enough lifeboats to save all souls on board.

It’s going to get ugly pretty soon, my friends. Better build your own lifeboat.

Secession is the only hope for liberty on the North American continent.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.