From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

The immigration issue is mostly about race. Whites are concerned that non-white immigrants, and their children, pose a threat to whites' cultural and political supremacy. The danger is that if non-whites were to gain control, America could become another Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

It is not always necessary to exclude non-whites from one's country, to keep them from becoming dominant. Countries like Rhodesia and South Africa were able to have a ruling white minority. Adolf Hitler did not have a problem with non-whites living in Germany, or even serving in the Wehrmacht, but he did propose dividing the population into citizens, subjects, and aliens, with only whites being allowed to become citizens. In this way, non-white laborers could participate in the economy without there being any risk they would take over the government. Traditionally, the United States also limited the franchise to white men.

This type of system, while better than what we have now, may not be the most meritocratic that could possibly be devised. An even better system might be Curtis Yarvin's proposed neocameralism, under which the government would be structured as a joint-stock corporation that investors would have to buy into in order to vote. This would tend to create a capitalistic aristocracy in which consumers, even in their everyday purchases, would be voting with their dollars for the political leaders they want, since the most successful businessmen would be able to afford to buy more shares in the government.

Equal opportunity laws should be repealed, so that people have the ability to preserve the culture and character of their neighborhoods and businesses by excluding from their property those races they do not want present there. We should also repeal the Reconstruction Amendments (although the reason why I would want to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not necessarily so much to enslave non-whites, as to make it easier to re-establish patriarchy as the structure of the American family). Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace - a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

I believe in that vision. As a libertarian, I am all about leveraging comparative advantage to expand the production–possibility frontier. I am not even opposed to white men's bringing foreign women of all races into the country to serve as concubines in their harems, since sperm is cheap, and there will always be a pure Aryan bloodline as long as we have a policy of encouraging early marriage and reserve the white women for white men rather than letting them interbreed with other races.

Here we see a contradiction, by the way, between Corey Stewart's pro-Confederate stance and his anti-immigration stance. If Latinos are being brought into this country as undocumented workers to mow lawns and clean toilets, that is not much different than negro slaves being imported by the southern states to pick cotton. Both of them were denied the rights of full citizens, and kept around only to do unskilled work that the white man didn't want to bother with, lest it distract from higher pursuits. I don't recall reading in any history book about poor white southerners complaining "Dey Terk Er Jerbs" after the black slaves were brought in, the way they complain about Latinos today. The whole point of bringing them in was to enrich white businessmen, which in both cases, it did.

Even Donald Trump likes to get rich off of hiring cheap non-white labor to manufacture his merchandise. (He blamed it on China's currency manipulation, but nonetheless, his choice of production locations was an acknowledgement that the American customer prioritizes saving money over helping American workers.) Ironically, maybe the proceeds of some of this international capitalism were later used to fund his nationalistic campaign, much like his campaign donations to Hillary were intended as, essentially, a bribe to get her to leave his businesses alone so he could make money with which to run attack ads against her later. Trump seems to have trouble figuring out whether he should be proud of his brilliant use of federal laws to get rich, or whether Hillary is a nasty woman for pointing it out. But maybe it was her intent that he thought was nasty.

At any rate, this glorious civilization is not just about the open doors, but also about the creativity that only the white man possesses, which builds a country that immigrants from all over the world would want to come to. If we were to ever lose that, then we wouldn't need to worry about immigration policy anymore, because America would become just another shithole country like Haiti that everyone would be wanting to move out of, not into, because there would be nothing left worth coming here for.

Countries all over Latin America based their constitutions on the U.S. Constitution, but none were able to build as successful a nation as what los norteamericanos developed. To ask "why not" is like asking, why couldn't an uakari given a computer with Microsoft Word compose a great novel? Sometimes even more important than having the right tools is having the intellect to use them properly. That kind of intellect belongs only to the white man. The non-white races, if put in charge of running this nation under our Constitution, would fail just as badly as they did in their home countries south of the Rio Grande.

And so there also comes a time when we must put away our Ronald Reagan speech transcripts, and bust out a copy of Mein Kampf to find out, What would Adolf do? Would Adolf allow the white race to be overrun and subjugated, or would he stand and fight? I for one am not going to let the dark shroud of a new barbarian era enfold the earth on my watch.

It seems evident that there will continue to be racial discrimination in America. It's just a question of whether this discrimination is to be carried out through the immigration system, or by finding creative ways to disenfranchise non-whites, or by some other means. If non-whites were to ever gain control of the U.S. government, then whites would probably feel compelled to leave the country, much as they left Rhodesia after a black-led government took the reins of power. The United States would then fall into decline, and probably collapse unless white- or Asian-led foreign powers propped it up.

(The Obama administration, by the way, was not a black-led government. Barack Obama himself was not a predominantly black man, since he received genetics and upbringing from his white mother. His election also could not have occurred without the help of white voters, so we should look at his presidency as mostly a white accomplishment.)

I have mixed feelings about imposing a ban on Muslims' entering into, or living in, the United States. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of allowing a few terrorists to dictate American policy. On the other hand, if the Muslim community is turning a blind eye to terrorists in their midst, rather than reporting suspicious individuals, that isn't good. It doesn't show a lot of respect for the country that graciously allowed them to be here; and if we allow that disrespect, it could have a demoralizing effect on the white population.

But it may not be possible to get Muslims to change what they teach, if it's against the tenets of their religion to oppose violence against the infidel. Either way, we have to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether Muslims contribute enough to this country that it's worth the downsides, and decide accordingly. We may need to tell the Muslims, "Go home and prove the superiority of your religion by building a civilization that is stronger and more prosperous than anything the infidel could develop. Bring glory to Allah by establishing a caliphate that will be the new shining city on the hill, inspiring the whole world to want to come there."

The one good thing about Muslims, though, is that at least they set a good example for how to uphold the traditional hierarchy between the sexes. They have a proper idea of what is the role of women in society. I also think it's cool that they made it a part of their Scriptural canon that the Seal of the Prophets apparently saw no problem with having sex with a nine or ten-year-old girl.

As for the Jews, my message to them would be, "You have your own ethnostate, Israel, which Americans have spent decades helping you defend. We've also given you refuge in this country, keeping you safe from those who hated you and wanted to kill you. What are you going to do in return? Are you going to help the white man by being good guests in our country? Or are you going to hinder us from replenishing the white population, by spreading feminism that undermines patriarchal authority and thereby destroys white families?

"Because if it's the latter, you can get out now, and take your cultural Marxism to Israel, and see how leftist values are received there. Let's see what the conservative Jews in the Knesset think of your ideas that border walls are bad, and that cultural and racial diversity are enriching. Don't abuse our hospitality, unless you want to add another entry to the Expulsions of Jews Wikipedia article."

Maybe it's also time that we gave Jews a chance to demonstrate that they really are the chosen people, by seeing how well God can protect Israel without the help of American military aid. It might not be so bad if Israel were to have to resort to the use of nuclear weapons in self-defense against a few of America's enemies, such as Iran.