Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Donald Trump Proves He Is No Conservative

Donald Trump has finally crossed the line with his call to halt Muslim immigration.  That’s not who the GOP is as a party, and that’s not Conservatism. 

If you want to know what’s truly Conservative, all you need to do ask people like Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Ryan, and Lindsey Graham.  They’ve Conservatively denounced The Donald as an “unhinged” “racist” “bigot” who is “soiling the robe of conservatism” and should “go to hell.”

Of course, it was Conservatives like Bush, Kristol, Ryan, and Graham who drove the country into the most expensive and longest wars in the nation’s history in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It was demagogues like Trump who opposed our massive sacrifice of treasure and blood in the Conservative Iraq war.  Trump warned that toppling Saddam Hussein and other secular leaders in the Middle East would destabilize the region and create power vacuums for radical Islamists to fill.  What a reckless lack of judgment on Trump’s part.

Trump has also failed to embrace the Conservative policy of arming Islamic rebels in Syria in the hope of overthrowing the secular Assad government.  What could possibly go wrong?  I mean, the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian refugees, and the millions of people posing as them, are natural Conservatives.  Just invite them in all in.  Invade the Muslim world and invite the Muslim world.  That’s the Conservative thing to do.  Invade and invite.

Don’t forget to also stir up hostilities with the one country that has enough nuclear weapons to wipe our largest cities off the map.  If Trump were a Conservative, then he would be calling for punitive new economic sanctions on Russia.  He would be demonizing Vladimir Putin incessantly, never forgetting to compare him to Hitler.  Anything that provokes an escalation of tensions with Russia is obviously Conservative.  But Trump has said he wants to get along with Putin.  If that doesn’t demonstrate just how dangerous a Trump presidency would be, I don’t know what will. 

Trump can’t be trusted.  He exaggerates.  A true Conservative like Dick Cheney doesn’t exaggerate.  He flat out lies when it’s necessary to get us into a war against a country that never attacked us.  Dick Cheney spearheaded a war in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the persecution and forced displacement of virtually all Iraqi Christians. 

So Dick Cheney is the ideal person to be lecturing Donald Trump about religious freedom.  After Trump proposed a moratorium on Islamic immigration, Cheney chimed in and said, no, that “goes against everything we stand for,” especially “religious freedom.” 

Because, of course, when the Founding Fathers wrote religious freedom into the Bill of Rights, they wanted Muslims born in Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia to be able to use their religion as an excuse to sidestep any scrutiny over the heightened real-world risk their demographic represents to our freedoms.  Religious freedom means Muslims born abroad have the right to come here to try to establish Sharia zones in our cities or Sharia law through the voting booth in areas where immigration has given them demographic strength.  As far as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were concerned, the Koran was just as good a basis for a government of a free society as the Magna Carta. 

That’s what a Conservative believes.  The great Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush told us that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that what Muslims really want is to have democratic pluralistic societies just like ours. 

Conservatives can disregard centuries of divergent history, can disregard cultural incompatibilities, can disregard genetic incompatibilities, and can disregard statistical probabilities.  In any conflict between reality and Conservative principles, the Conservative puts his full faith in his principles.  If they happen to reinforce the policy prescriptions of the left, so be it.  A Conservative would rather support government programs to resettle welfare-dependent Muslims from war-torn hell holes into our cities than have his principles called into question by someone on the left.  You’ll know a Conservative who stands on principle by the fact that he carefully avoids taking any position that could be construed by the New York Times editorial page as Racist, Xenophobic, or Islamophobic. 

When a Conservative advocates spending a trillion dollars on a foreign war that wreaks havoc, he might be called misguided.  But he’s misguided in the name of global egalitarian ideals.  He’s operating within the window of allowable opinion.  On the other hand, to suggest that immigration policy not be concerned at all with serving the world, to demand that it serve national self-interests, to propose that it discriminate – discriminate! – on the basis of cultural compatibility and population risk characteristics is to commit an intolerable ideological transgression.

That’s why the entire GOP establishment is lining up to denounce Trump.  He crossed a line.  And in doing so he could move the window of political viability so far from the Conservatism of Jeb, Dick, and Lindsey as to render their wing of the Republican party electorally impotent.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Hungary for a Real Leader

“I feel that we have to seize every opportunity to finally talk about demographics openly, free from political taboos, and, if possible, among the widest possible circles.” 

These words are from a recent speech given by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  He is the rare European leader who grasps what’s now at stake for European civilization.  If the current policies of the European Union stand, Europeans will be demographically swamped in their own countries by Third World transients.  Europe as we have known it will cease to exist.

From Viktor Orbán’s speech to the Budapest Demographic Forum:
The situation is that in Europe today it is not PC to talk about demographic issues. I am personally faced almost daily with the fact that there are certain topics which nowadays are not considered suitable subjects for discussion in the European public sphere. There are words which simply cannot be uttered – not for aesthetic reasons, but for political reasons.  
The Europe of which we were once proud – because this was the world of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion – is today in such an intellectual state, has manoeuvred itself into such a spiritual state, that certain words, questions and political concepts cannot even be uttered….  
I sincerely hope that we who have gathered here today want a Europe which is based on families rather than on immigration… 
There are times when demographers must have their voices heard. We are now living in such times. The survival of our civilisation and culture is at stake. In the history of the world, not a single culture which was unable to populate the land in which it lived was able to survive…

This is the kind of talk we need to hear from heads of state in all Western countries, because all Western countries now face the prospect of demographic decline and population replacement.  More than talk, we need action.  To its credit, Hungary’s government has resisted mandatory EU refugee quotas.  It has erected a border fence to stem the flow of handout-seeking invaders. 

But last year it shut down a conference made up of people who gathered from around the world to discuss the very issues Orbán says we must speak openly about.  Conference organizer Richard Spencer was jailed by Hungarian authorities for thought crimes. 

Maybe it took this year’s unprecedented flood of uninvited migrants to wake up Hungarian officials from their EU-induced Politically Correct stupor.

When I visited Budapest in 2010, there were no visible signs of any refugee invasion.  But I knew it was only a matter of time before population replacement programs hit Hungary.  Here is the video footage and commentary I recorded while on the ground in Budapest:

I couldn’t have conceived of just how big a demographic tsunami would strike Budapest five years later.  This is how the Gatestone Institute described the disaster:
The realities on the ground at Hungary's international railway terminus had to be seen to be believed. Hungarians were easily outnumbered 200 to 1 by predominantly young Muslim males. These newcomers engaged in sporadic violence; rioted at the sight of passing camera crews, and left the station littered with human excrement.

A country’s main railway station literally gone to shit.  That’s what happens when a country’s will -- to defend itself and its borders -- goes to shit.  That’s what PC culture does to a country.
  European Union migration policy represents a demographic death pact for EU member countries.  Hungary’s defiance represents the possibility that some countries in Europe will act to ensure that their European character lives for future generations.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Objectivism and Immigration

How does a philosophy that champions meritocracy end up with spokespeople who sneer at the idea of a meritocratic immigration system?  How does a philosophy that champions Western ideals end up with spokespeople who demand that the West open itself up to its demographic destruction?  How does a philosophy that champions the principle of rational self-interest end up with spokespeople who insist that immigration policy altruistically serve the interests of foreign-born Muslims, Marxists, and moochers? 

Why do open borders Objectivists undercut their own philosophy?  Let’s find out…

Self-described Objectivist Harry Binswanger goes so far as to demand that our government issue a collective apology to illegal aliens:  “Amnesty ForIllegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology”.

John Galt would be shrugging in his fictional grave.  The strikers in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged who established Galt’s Gulch unapologetically rejected the notion of a positive right for outsiders to move into their utopia uninvited.  Harry Binswanger apparently believes that everyone would have a positive right to crash the border of a real-world Galt’s Gulch and take up residence there uninvited.  That’s the implication of the global right to migrate he asserts. 

But Galt’s Gulch was a private community, not a sovereign state.

Well, what possible moral objection could an Objectivist raise to a fully independent and sovereign Galt’s Gulch?  A real-life Midas Mulligan could conceivably buy up vast contiguous parcels of land, develop a private community there – membership by invitation only, and eventually build it into a self-governing, self-sufficient micro-nation that peacefully secedes and becomes the sovereign state of Galtlandia.  On the day Galtlandia becomes independent, does the rest of the world suddenly acquire a positive right to take up residence there?  A right that nobody had the day before, when Galtlandia was a private restrictive community? 

That would mean that Galtlandia’s declaration of independence achieves the opposite of independence.  Galtlandian independence ends Galtlandia as a community by and for lovers of liberty.  It turns Galtlandia into a cog in the global community that is duty-bound to take in anyone from anywhere in the world, including the very sorts of people Galtlandians sought to get away from.  Before, Galtlandia could ensure that it would be composed of a high-quality population by setting high standards for admission.  Now that it’s an independent sovereign jurisdiction, it must throw away its founding principles, and its demographic future, in the name of Binswanger’s egalitarian altruism.

Binswanger masquerades as a defender of freedom.  But opening up immigration to both friends and enemies of freedom equally isn’t how a free nation defends its freedom.  It’s how a nation sacrifices its freedom.  All in the name of freedom for them – the others.  It is through hijacking freedom movements and the language of freedom that egalitarians advance their leftist political aims.  Behind Binswanger’s superficial appeals to freedom, he reveals his egalitarian moral core.

Binswanger regards a meritocratic immigration selection process as unfair to immigrants who don’t merit selection.  He laments that they would be treated as “undesirables.”  He places “undesirables” in mocking quotation marks to express his egalitarian revulsion at the very idea of judging some immigrant populations as more desirable than others.

For the egalitarian, being non-judgmental is the highest virtue.  For the egalitarian, all immigrants have the same fixed inherent worth.  If you judge immigrants based on your own values, you might as well be a Nazi.  Either you’re an egalitarian or you’re a Nazi at heart – that’s the false dichotomy the egalitarian pushes.  But if you value the preservation of your liberty, then you oppose both Nazism and open immigration stampedes that threaten your life, liberty, and property.

Foreign-born populations that commit violent crimes at 10 times the rate of the native born or terrorism at 100 times the rate of native-born citizens are undesirable from the standpoint of any citizen who desires liberty.  Immigrants who enter illegally are undesirable in a free society that grounds itself in the rule of law and should therefore be deported.  What’s the alternative?  Amnesty, plus citizenship, plus voting rights for all past, present, and future border crossers?  An open-ended power for the government to dilute the liberty vote and transform the electorate in the image of the Third World?

Deportation is a much more circumscribed power.  The costs to taxpayers of deportation are far lower than the costs of building more prisons to warehouse foreign-born criminals.  It’s far cheaper to close the door on open Muslim immigration than it is to wage war against Muslim countries because Muslim immigrants commit acts of terrorism.  The long-term economic and political costs of lowering the national IQ average due to low-IQ immigration and dysgenic immigrant fertility are difficult to calculate.  But immigration-driven IQ degeneration is nearly impossible to reverse without making immigration more selective on the basis of IQ.  This is because IQ is a highly heritable trait that is distributed unequally both within and between populations. 

Meanwhile, the world's most religious people and the world's poorest, most dependent people are having the most children.  Through lopsided birth rates and through migration, they will genetically swamp those of us who claim to value reason and liberty.  If we do actually value reason and liberty, then we must stop sacrificing our actual values to the phony universal ones egalitarians bait us with.  That’s how they turn us into practicing pathological altruists who work on behalf of our own demise. 

They get liberty advocates to embrace immigration policies that lead in practice to the demographic degradation of the libertarian electorate.  They get Objectivists who champion the Western-derived values of reason and individualism to promote immigration policies that replace Westerners with Third World Muslims and other cultural primitives whose congenitally low IQs predispose them against adopting a rational philosophy. 

Ayn Rand believed that the Europeans who discovered America were right to claim the land for Western civilization.  They were right because their values were superior to those of the American Indians, and so was their capacity for achievement.  Individual liberty, electricity, automobiles, skyscrapers, space flight, computer technology – none of these things would have been achieved by more primitive societies left to their own devices.

If it was right to establish Western civilization in lands ruled by savages, then it is wrong to allow Western civilization to be invaded by savages. 

Some Objectivists get it, at least in part.  Leonard Peikoff represents the doctrinaire strain of Objectivism, but to his credit he takes a contextual, non-dogmatic approach to immigration policy.  He doesn’t prescribe open immigration for all countries regardless of the detrimental consequences to those countries. 

David Kelley represents the open-tent version of Objectivism.  I asked him a few questions about his approach to immigration policy from his booth at FreedomFest.

It’s hard to tell whether Kelley is a categorically committed immigration egalitarian like Binswanger or whether he’d be morally amenable to an immigration system that filtered out high-risk culturally hostile populations.  But clearly, any self-described Objectivist who champions “open borders” as an ideal has consciously rejected the “selective borders” model of Galt’s Gulch.  And such a rejection is almost certainly the result of latent egalitarian premises that Objectivism has failed to fully expunge from its adherents.

If you claim to value the West but not the preservation of its people, you’re attempting to divorce mind from body.  A nation isn’t a mere set of abstract principles.  It’s an integrated sociobiological construct. 

If I were to say to the Japanese that I respect their culture but don’t care if their people get completely overrun and replaced by Congolese refugees because I believe in open borders, what kind of backhanded compliment would that be?  It wouldn’t be a compliment at all.  It would be a lie.  Because if I truly respected Japanese culture, I would recognize that the Japanese people are a crucial part of its identity and maintenance.

If we in the West are to stop our decline and enter into a new ascendancy, we need an ascendant demography.  We aren’t going to apologize our way to an ascendant society.  If our government did owe anyone a collective apology for its immigration policies, it would be only to the citizens it exists to serve.  If the government deprives us of bright, freedom-loving immigrants of good moral character who would have been model citizens, then it is in the name of our interests that the government should change its immigration policies.  Not in the name of an egalitarian positive right of each of the world’s 7 billion people to immigrate regardless of their cultural compatibility with our Western values.  But the core problem with our immigration policy is that it is not selective enough. 

Why was this unassimilable Haitian savage allowed into the country?  Why wasn’t he deported before he savagely murdered Casey Chadwick?  Why isn’t the government apologizing to the victim’s family for failing at its most basic duty of keeping out and physically removing foreign threats?

Open immigration proponents argue that immigrants who are peaceful, intelligent, productive, and freedom-loving add value to a country.  But that is no argument for open immigration.  It is instead an implicit argument against letting in immigrants who exude the opposite characteristics.   I am here making that argument explicit.

And open-borders proponent Don Boudreaux made explicit the fact that open borders ideology is in principle (if not in particular cases) suicidal.  Boudreaux expressed concern about the negative political consequences of unfettered immigration from people hostile to liberty.  But, he said, "I still support open immigration.  I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal." 

That level of pathological altruism is implicit in all arguments for open immigration.