Category: immigration

Alt Right News, 2/2/18

Groundhog Day edition.

An Alt Right activist prepares to enjoy the holiday.  It’s of Germanic origin after all.  Heil Phil!

Someone else gets it, albeit a bit late.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that any other outcome than Nightmarer deportation is a failure. Der Touchback can win any sort of concessions but fat (as Roissy would say, heh) chance any of them becoming actualized long term.  Remember, amnesty is forever, enforcement is never.

And the political cost of deportation?  The media and the Left will make a huge cry and show “opinion polls” saying it is unpopular (like the same type of polls I stupidly believed in the fall of 2016 predicting a Clinton electoral victory), but so what?  These types will hate Trump no matter what he does (or does not do); remember the EGI Notes mantra: For the Left, hatred of Trump is a polite and socially acceptable way to express hatred of Whites.

With DACA deportation, the Left will hate Trump and the Democrats and Cuckservatives will oppose him. With DACA amnesty, the Left will still hate Trump and the Democrats and Cuckservatives will still oppose him.  Amnesty won’t win him or the GOP any votes from the Left; however, amnesty will cost both Trump and the GOP votes from the Right.

But, hey, the Alt Right Brainmasters (the leadership, not the rank-and-file who have healthier ideas, as the above-linked article shows us) tell us that supporting deportation is “stupid” and “short-sighted.”  Yes, indeed, let us be smart and politically pragmatic like Reagan was in 1986.  Worked real well for him.  And for us.

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter’s breakfast butler hysterically proclaims: “All Hail the God-Emperor’s State of the Universe Address!” Counter-Currents: How have the mighty fallen.

Like the movie Groundhog Day, history will repeat itself in an endless loop until Der Movement gets it right: Stop with the puerile Man on White Horse Syndrome worship.


Immigration: No Free Lunch

It’s NOT the economy, stupid.

I note, and have noted many times before, that the immigration question among the mainstream is continuously presented (almost solely) in economic terms.  The latest manifestation of this is the claim that immigration is the “closest thing to a free lunch” since population growth fuels economic growth via an increased number of workers and consumers. This Ponzi scheme view of economic growth fails for a number of reasons, including the obvious point that a larger economy divided over a larger population is not increasing the per capita payoff – it may be a larger pie, but not larger pieces for each individual. I note that as immigration has flooded into America over the past several decades, allegedly “fueling economic growth,” real wages for the typical American have stagnated, and the American middle class is in a well-documented and oft-discussed decline.  Is it that all this “growth” is lining the pockets of big business, and also benefiting the immigrants themselves and not natives?  Then we are constantly being told that automation will “make work obsolete,” and so a “basic guaranteed income” will be required in the wake of the mass unemployment thus created – a “citizen’s dividend” based on the productivity generated by automation and artificial intelligence.  If so, why do we import more people who will not only become superfluous as workers, but who will compete with natives for the proceeds of the productivity to be distributed as that guaranteed income?  

And even putting the issue of automation aside, the Ponzi scheme aspect of the immigration-population-economy equation becomes more clear when we ask: if immigrants do the work natives won’t do, then who will do that work in the next generation (assuming no automation) when the immigrants’ children are “Americans” or “Europeans” with American or European expectations and the consequent disdain for manual labor?  Do we import another generation of immigrants to do this unwanted work, repeated ad infinitum, until the entire nation is full of the posterity of those brought in to do cheap manual labor?  Conversely, if we need “high skilled immigrants” as we in America are constantly told, then why can’t we find Americans to do these desirable, highly-paid professional jobs?  Are native Americans stupid as well as lazy?  And, if so, how did they build a nation so attractive that all these immigrants want to come to in the first place?  And, further, if immigrants are required to fund “the retirement of an aging native population” (assuming that young non-Whites would politically support funding the retirement of old Whites who they hate), what happens when the immigrants themselves get old and retire?  Would more immigrants be required to fund those retirements – an endless pyramid scheme of immigration and inter-generational wealth transfer?  Or will the immigrants have enough children to support their retirement, underscoring the race replacement aspect of the immigrant influx?  Speaking of which, we can further ask – even if a declining native population “hinders economic growth” (a popular meme, along with the “who will pay for retirement” ploy, to justify genocidal alien immigration into Europe) – so what?   Eventually it will be a self-correcting process, as automation, increased productive efficiency, altered economic structures and expectations and, very likely, an eventual increase in the native birth rate, balances things out – sans replacement immigration.  I can also point out that bringing in hordes of cheap labor aliens to crowd out, compete with, and displace, natives is not exactly conductive to increasing native birth rates.  Or is that the intention?

Finally, we get to the most important, the most fundamental point.  Even if everything the pro-immigration crowd says about economic benefit is true, it still is not worth it.  A nation is not an abstract economic zone, and a people are not an atomized mass of workers and consumers.  Nations and peoples are historical entities, with particular ethnic, racial, social, and cultural profiles, and a people being demographically and culturally displaced and replaced are not benefiting, even if “the economy grows.” Mass immigration of alien peoples, particularly in the context of declining native populations, is genocide against the natives, and what price economic growth if historical nations and peoples cease to exist, and vanish from the Earth?  Read this post for a more technical analysis of the precedence of genetic continuity and genetic interests over any economic concerns, and if you still insist on putting a “dollars and cents” measure on these issues, then read this.  Existence, not economic growth, is the fundamental concern of any people, and no amount of “economic growth” – most of which the native masses will never themselves enjoy – can never justify criminal genocidal policies targeted against beleaguered European-derived peoples.

This post is also relevant to another pro-immigration argument I’ve seen making the rounds again recently: “if you are against (legal and illegal) low-skilled immigration, then you have no good reason to oppose high-skilled immigration, which is such a net positive for our nation.”  Nonsense.  Read this post again, particularly the last section that emphasizes race and culture, and the genocidal implications of displacing and replacing the native population.  Read the linked posts, especially the one outlining the EGI concept and its importance to immigration.  Of course high-skilled immigration is harmful; indeed, one can make the argument that high-skilled non-White immigration is worse for Whites than low-skilled non-White immigration.  High-skilled immigration brings in more clever and capable enemies, more capable and clever competitors, the importation of an alien ruling class, using ethnic nepotism to displace native White Americans from positions of power and prestige.  High-skilled immigrants, free-riding on the society and infrastructure painstakingly built up by White Americans, will climb to the top of the human energy pyramid, leveraging ethnic cartel networks to squeeze Whites out and reduce White Americans to a subaltern caste within their own nation. Is that a good enough reason for you?  Is that sufficient reason to oppose high-skilled immigration?  They are not us, they are not wanted, we need to develop and nurture our own high-skilled population.  We do not want or need leering aliens lording it over us.

Deport the Nightmarers

Out with the trash.

Listen to this.

So, the Alt Righters believe that taking an extreme hard-line position on DACA and immigration is stupid and short-sighted; they assert that we need to be practical and understand the realities of political horse-trading to make progress to ease the demographic pressures from immigration.

I have four ripostes to that position:

1. First, whether or not that opinion position is valid or not, it would seem to be valid only for those people in political power who actually have the option to engage in such pragmatic political negotiations.   Miller in the White House may well need to consider such a course of action.  However, perhaps it would be best for Alt Righters talking and lulzing in their “Hate Loft” to take the most extreme positions possible, to push the discussion as far in the radical direction as possible.  Leave the mainstreaming to those who have the power to actualize political deals, and manifest vanguardism to keep the mainstreamers honest.

2. The only deal worth making in exchange for DACA amnesty is one that truly eliminates all future illegal immigration and makes enormous cuts to legal immigration.  A true end to the illegal influx and a mass decrease to the legalized dispossession of White Americans.  Does anyone believe that’s what we will really get?

3. Why can’t we get enforcement of existing law – perhaps coupled to the decreased legal immigration that a majority of Americans want – without giving amnesty to the Nightmarers?  Why must following existing law be held hostage to amnesty?  Why must listening to the will of the American people be held hostage to amnesty?

4. There is a more fundamental reason why amnesty is a bad idea, even with lots of concessions in return: trading something irreversible for something reversible is always wrong, always a bad deal

Amnesty for the Nightmarers will indeed be irreversible (absent revolution and the ethnostate), and giving them eventual citizenship would just solidify that irreversibility.  However, “strict enforcement” can always be reversed by a future administration, by a shift in Congress, by judges striking down laws, by cuts in funding, by passive aggressive refusal to enforce existing law (as we have today). Enforcement can be ignored, but amnesty is forever.  Don’t we remember the fiasco of the Reagan amnesty?  How soon we forget.  What about the “wall?” Isn’t that permanent?  First, that assumes it will ever get built.  Second, even if it is built, its utility is limited, people can get in other ways, without strict, ongoing internal enforcement of immigration law, the grant wall is mostly symbolic rather than effective.  Third, legal immigration quotas can always be increased in the future, putting those “big beautiful doors” in the almighty wall.  The wall itself, even if built, doesn’t amount to much compared to the will to actually enforce the law – with that will, the wall wouldn’t be necessary to begin with.  The wall, in the end, built or not, may end up being another Trumpian scam.  Why doesn’t the Trump team and all his fanboys realize #4?  Readers of this blog know the answer to that.

The Nightmarers should be deported.  That’s actually the humane option, as one could argue that the Nightmarers should be treated like part of an invading army; the military should be sent after them.  If the Nightmarers surrender, put them into POW camps until the immigration war is won, and then repatriate them to their nations of origin.  If they resist, treat them as you would any resisting military enemy – destroy the opposing force.  Have the army gun them down.

One could argue that.  This blog, steeped in humanist pacifism and the love for all peoples, obviously would not argue that, but some people may do so.

Steinle and the Bullied White Dalits of America

Lessons from the schoolyard.

Read this.

Whites are a subaltern caste; actually, no, not a caste at all, untouchables.

Whites are the Dalits of America.

The appropriate and respectful response to this travesty was thisnot shameless panhandling.

Of course, what really should have happened was for the Steinle family to come out and forcefully denounce the verdict from a racial basis.  Instead, according to the piece, this is what happened:

Meanwhile, so far, even the parents of the dead girl are coming out against the “hate shrine” dedicated to their daughter.
I don’t know about you, but the self-loathing and cowardliness of most Whites is difficult to witness day in and day out.

One day – who knows when? – Whites in this situation will actually behave normally, as every other group would behave in like circumstances, and speak truth to power.  A family who has faced similar tragedy and similar injustice will speak up in defense of White racial interests and denounce the genocidal anti-White System we suffer under.  Until then, we must endure the spectacle of the cringing White untouchables of America groveling before their masters.  Who knows when the other shoe will drop – will the Steinle family publicly embrace and forgive the wetback who killed their daughter?  After all, that would be the “Christian” thing to do, no?  That’ll really show dem dere dirty racists their lesson!

Lesson from the schoolyard: Someone who is being bullied will continue being bullied until they fight back.  All Whites know is surrender and appeasement, and so the anti-White bullying by their privileged Colored/Jewish overlords never ends. Whites need to organize, politically and metapolitically, and start acting like a normal people, with normal and natural interests, once again.

All else is folly.

Genetic Detection of Immigrants

Multilocus genotypes.

Detecting immigrants from the analysis of multilocus genotypes: paper here.  An old paper; of course, methodology has gone past this since; nevertheless, it deserves to be noted, for the idea that looking at multilocus genotypes allows for distinguishing genetic types even when “bean bag genetics” differentiation is low.  The basic premise; emphasis added:

Immigration is an important force shaping the social structure, evolution, and genetics of populations. A statistical method is presented that uses multilocus genotypes to identify individuals who are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. The method is appropriate for use with allozymes, microsatellites, or restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) and assumes linkage equilibrium among loci. Potential applications include studies of dispersal among natural populations of animals and plants, human evolutionary studies, and typing zoo animals of unknown origin (for use in captive breeding programs). The method is illustrated by analyzing RFLP genotypes in samples of humans from Australian, Japanese, New Guinean, and Senegalese populations. The test has power to detect immigrant ancestors, for these data, up to two generations in the past even though the overall differentiation of allele frequencies among populations is low.

Classical theory in population genetics has focused on the long term effects of immigration on allele frequency distributions in semi-isolated populations, concentrating on the stationary distribution resulting from a balance between forces of immigration, genetic drift, and mutation (1–4). Less theory exists addressing the effect of recent immigration among populations with low levels of genetic differentiation. A theory describing the effects of immigration on the genetic composition of individuals in populations that are not at genetic equilibrium is needed to interpret much of the data being generated using current genetic techniques.

In this paper we consider the multilocus genotypes that result when individuals are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. We propose a test that allows recent immigrants to be identified on the basis of their multilocus genotypes; the test has considerable power for detecting immigrant individuals even when the overall level of genetic differentiation among populations is low. Molecular genetic techniques that allow multilocus genotypes to be described from single individuals are relatively new, and much of the information contained in these types of data is not fully exploited by estimators of long term gene flow that are currently available (5–7). We provide an example of an application of the method to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) genotypes from human populations; the method may also be applied to analyze multilocus allozyme and microsatellite data.


 At least three potentially misleading results may arise when applying the method considered here. First, the failure to reject the hypothesis that an individual was an immigrant, or descended from immigrants, may simply reflect the fact that the appropriate populations for comparison were not included in the analysis. Second, an individual might incorrectly appear to have originated in a particular population other than the one from which it was sampled. This might be due to similarities in allele frequencies, due to long-term gene flow, between that population and a third population from which the individual actually originated, but which was not included in the sample of populations. Third, the fact that many pairwise comparisons between populations are performed for each of a large number of individuals means that some individuals will appear to be immigrants purely by chance.

See this as well.  And also this.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was some work going on in population genetics concerning multilocus genotypes.  A lot of good could have come from that if it was continued.  By an interesting coincidence, work on this subject essentially ended around the same time Der Movement and the HBDers went online talking about, and dissecting, population genetics studies.  It could be a coincidence, but given how most population geneticists are hysterical SJWs, maybe some of them decided not to investigate areas of their field that would focus attention on the great degree of actual ethnoracial differentiation that exists when genetic structure is taken into account.

Trump and DACA


Read this.  That’s important news.

I guess we’ll now hear homoerotic frenzies from Trump fanboys, and loud cries about “4-D chess,” but another explanation is simply that Trump is under pressure from the base – as brought to his attention by commentators and perhaps by Bannon’s whispers in their (back door) phone calls – to fulfill his campaign promises, as opposed to his natural inclination to cuck.  Thus, it are Trump’s critics on the Right, not Trump and his fanboys, who are responsible for this development.

Of course, we’ll see how the System attempts to block this.

And for what it is worth, a viewpoint that Trump’s action will backfire.

In the end, I do not think any of these people – by “these people” I mean those who want some sort of control of immigration – know what they are doing.  It is half measures, ad hoc approaches, reactionary reversal of policies without any overarching strategy to preserve even the current American racial demographic situation.

We’ll need to wait and see how this all plays out.  But the Right needs to keep the pressure on; instead of homoerotic paens to “the god emperor,” the Right needs to press for more and more immigration control and restriction, and less and less of the alien influx.