Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

UPDATED: Monarchy Vs. Mobocracy (“Albion’s Seed”)

Ancient History, Britain, Bush, Celebrity, Classical Liberalism, Democracy, Founding Fathers, History, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, The West

Trashing the British monarchy is an unfortunate, liberal (not in the classical tradition) impulse, prevalent in the US. Never mind that the British monarchy is purely titular. This American instinct mirrors the deracinated nature of American society, epitomized by the neoconservative creed. Strategically, Americans are taught, in state-run schools, that they form part of a propositional nation, united by abstract ideas, rather than by ties to history, heroes, language, literature, traditions.

In truth, America was founded on both. There was the Lockean philosophy of individual rights. But this philosophy, as the American Founders understood, didn’t magically materialize, or come into existence by osmosis. “Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated. Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism.”

The fathers of this nation, moreover, loved the American people; they did not delegitimize their ancestry and history by calling them eternal immigrants. John Jay conceived of Americans as “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and custom.” The very opposite of what their descendants are taught.

To denounce the monarchy, as some libertarians have done, with reference to that 18th Century Che Guevara, Thomas Paine, is radical alright, but it is also nihilistic. Paine sympathized with the Jacobins—the philosophical progenitors of today’s neoconservatives—and he lauded the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious “Revolution in France.”

Pat Buchanan, in one historically rich column, provides an interesting juxtaposition between king and a despot far worse:

“Louis XVI let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw again. When artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king’s ministers why Louis had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have replied, ‘The king of France does not use artillery on his own people.'”

In his seminal book, Democracy: the God that Failed, master of praxeology Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides ample support—historical and analytical—for his thesis which is this: If forced to choose between the mob (democracy) or the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent.

“[I]n light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly,” writes Hoppe.

“From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.”

… democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.

MORE.

[SNIP]

The democratically elected ruler has no real stake in the territory he trashes for the duration of his office. (Besides, Court Historians and assorted hagiographers will re-write history for him.) It was no mere act of symbolism for the Clintons to have trashed the White House on the eve of their departure.

The Queen of England might be a member of the much-maligned landed aristocracy, but she has acquitted herself as a natural aristocrat would—Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. (It was a sad day when she capitulated to the mob and to the cult of the Dodo Diana.) The queen has been working quietly (and apparently thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century. According to Wikipedia, Elizabeth Windsor was 13 when World War II broke out, which is when she gave her first radio broadcast to console the children who had been evacuated. Still in her teens, Elizabeth II joined the military, “where she … trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served.”

It looks as though William, her grandson, has more of a sense of duty (not my kind, but nevertheless a patriotism his countrymen may appreciate) than most members of the pampered American political dynasties. Did any one of the atrocious Bush girls do anything worthwhile over and above preach for daddy’s wars and promote Obama’s healthCare?

But to reiterate, the monarch in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. has far more powers, and uses them far more destructively, than does the monarch across the pond.

UPDATE (May 1): To the ahistoric contention below that American freedoms originate exclusively in … The Netherlands: I guess that the historian David Hackett Fischer, author of Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, got it completely wrong. Ridiculous too is the contention, moreover, made by the letter writer (I never publish untruths about my written opinions) that I was an Anglophile for stating that historic fact. There is a chapter in my forthcoming book titled “The Anglo-America Australian Axis of Evil.” Yes, that’s the writing of an incorrigible Anglophile!

Future Easters In Jerusalem? Don’t Bet On It

Foreign Policy, Glenn Beck, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Israel, Jihad, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood

If Christians value celebrating the Easter Holy Week in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem’s Old City—and it is majestic, believe me—they ought to pay more attention to the plans the Middle East Quartet is hatching for Israel. The United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia may push Israel to “withdraw to the [indefensible] armistice lines drawn up between the Jewish state and Jordan in 1949.” For the time being, the US has postponed a Quartet meeting, probably because Obama is already in bad odor with American on so many other issues.

Last Friday, Glenn Beck infuriated FoxNews’s Saudi shareholders by taking a symbolic, if unequivocal, stand for the Jew among the nations (yeah, yeah, I oppose foreign aid); for the civilized society (instead of the adjacent savage society). For “in Israel—foibles and frailties notwithstanding—the West has reclaimed a small spot of sanity in a sea of savagery, where enlightened western law prevails, and where Christians and Jews and their holy places are safe. (Muslims are always secure in western societies, Arab-Israelis too.).

When Jews commenced what must be the most remarkable modern-day national revival, Israel was a wasteland. Palestinians had done precious little for the land they purport to so love. As Ludwig von Mises (a utilitarian classical liberal), observed: For centuries the Near East has been a cultural backwater. “The Mohammedans”—to quote the delightfully archaic Mises—have for hundreds of years failed to produce so much as a “book of significance,” much less any scientific or other advancement.

Is there any wonder? The catalysts for creativity and prosperity are the ideas of individual freedom and freedom from the state. As Mises noted, these ideas are inimical to the cultures of the Near East, and the Islamic world in particular. Yet the “civilized” world is working diligently to shrink the civilized sphere that is Israel and expand the barbaric Palestinian Authority. (Question: What does unoccupied Palestinian land look like? Answer: Like Gaza.)

I must say that the rabbi Glenn entertained for his hour long “In Defense of Israel” show instantiated everything that is wrong with the American rabbinate, in particular, and American Jews, in general. Let me explain.

A woman in Beck’s audience asked the perspicacious question about the divide between American and Israeli Jews. Israelis and diaspora Jews: never the twain shall meet. But Rabbi Joseph Potasnik (a real “tembel”) gave her some tribal reply. Where does Glenn find these people? The rabbi was as ghettoized as any representative of CAIR.. Contrast that with the concision with which Dore Gold (a former Israeli ambassador) made his points.

American Jews are left-liberals, for the most, when it comes to the concerns of their fellow Americans, but rightist on matters Israel. In other words, hypocrites. They advocate a multicultural, immigration free-for-all, pluralist pottage for America. But when it comes to Israel, that’s another matter entirely.

As most left-liberal Jews who support Israel see it, Israel has the right to retain its creedal and cultural distinctiveness and its Jewish majority, but not so America. Israel should control immigration and guards its borders, but not the US. Ask this kind of Jew if he supports a “Right of Return” for every self-styled Palestinian refugee, and he’ll say, “Never. Are you insane? That’s a euphemism for Israel’s demise.”

The very thing he opposes for Israel, the left-liberal Jew champions for America: a global right of return to the US for the citizens of the world. When it comes to “returning” to America (but not Israel), humankind has a positive, manufactured right to venture wherever, whenever.

Blood On Their Hands

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Law, Media

“It’s not an illegal alien story; it’s a drunk driving story,” Geraldo Rivera once asserted on “The Factor,” following the slaying of an innocent American in a familiar way. The argument made by open-immigration fundamentalists, left and right—from (Tamar) Jacoby to Geraldo—is that the illegality of the perp is irrelevant to the crime. These advocates would thus dismiss as redundant to the facts of the case the illegal status of “Carlos Martinelly-Montano, 23, whose Aug. 1 collision in Prince William seriously injured two Benedictine nuns and killed a third, Sister Denise Mosier, 66, all of Richmond.” (The Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Promulgators of this tack are serious, although they should not be taken seriously. For this crushingly stupid claim to stick, you would have to demonstrate that had this drunk, illegal alien been stopped at the border or been deported, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate. AGAIN: For this conceit to fly, open-border fetishists would have to show that had Martinelly-Montano (and all the others) been deported or jailed, his victims (and all the others) would have nevertheless suffered the same fate at the hands of another drunk driver (murderer, child molester, etc.)—a deeply silly suggestion.

The Times Dispatch reports that,

Judicial Watch, a public disclosure group, said today that it has a received a copy of the report by the Department of Homeland Security that was kept secret after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had declared her office would thoroughly investigate the Prince William case and make it public.
The 35-page report deals with the criminal history and legal status of Carlos Martinelly-Montano, 23, whose Aug. 1 collision in Prince William seriously injured two Benedictine nuns and killed a third, Sister Denise Mosier, 66, all of Richmond.
Martinelly-Montano is scheduled to go to trial March 28 on six indictments, including felony murder, maiming resulting from driving under the influence and involuntary manslaughter.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the report, which his group sought through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows how this country’s patchwork of policies toward illegal immigrants and deportation can “blow up in our faces.”
He called the report “a clear indictment of Obama’s lawless approach to illegal immigration. An innocent person lost her life because local police officers and immigration officials couldn’t be bothered to enforce and obey the law.”

In case you don’t know, Bob Clark, director of one of the most delightful films ever made, “A Christmas Story,” and his 24-year-old son, would probably be alive today if not for a drunk, unlicensed, illegal alien careening down Pacific Coast Highway (not that you’d know it from this report; which deploys the passive form of the verb, as if to imply that Clark combusted spontaneously, or something)

UPDATED: Bono Gives Go-Ahead to ‘Kill The Boer’ Chant

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Racism, South-Africa

I know that few in the developed world care about the undeclared, ad hoc, genocidal, ethnic-cleansing of rural Afrikaners in South Africa, my old homeland (a least so the major, cowardly conservative publishers assure me). But (from their positions of relative safety), my American countrymen do care about Bono, the great benefactor of mankind, and are surely interested in what he has to say about the incitement to kill the Boers. (Fore more about these killings see “‘Kill The Fucking Whites’ On Facebook”)

Anyhoo, Bono is a chap who fronts a three-chord band of unimpressive droners. His ignorance about the teachings of the late Lord P. T. Bauer, the foremost authority on foreign aid, has catapulted him to a position of great prominence on matters concerning the undeveloped world. This is, after all, the Age of the Idiot.

On tour in South Africa, and amid the ongoing assault against the beleaguered Boers, Bono told the BBC that the ditty “Shoot the Boer,” “which was sung during the fight against apartheid” [and at practically every political rally since] had folkloric pride of place in South Africa, “like music supporting the Irish Republican Army.”

G-d must be otherwise indisposed. (I’m not a believer, but I know many of my readers are. “Respek.”) The God of the Jews was vengeful, when it came to meting out justice. If he were fully “engaged” (and I’m being as delicate as I can), he would surely have struck the bonehead Bono down for giving the killing of a vulnerable people the go-ahead.

Given the mesmerizing, often murderous, power of the chant—any chant—in African life, this is in fact what Bono has done. Does anyone remember the “‘Kill them before they kill you” slogan that helped excite Hutus to massacre half a million of their Tutsi neighbors? Apparently not.

Of course, banning an incitement to murder will do nothing to excise a dark reality embedded deep in the human heart. It is this reality that must be discussed openly vis-a-vis South Africa. I do this in
my book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons From South Africa from Post-Apartheid South Africa. It will be published on May 10, 2011.

UPDATE (Feb. 15): No matter how many times I write or reply to the question of, “Why don’t South Africans up and leave,” I get the same insular, derisive responses, or repeat questions. Again and again. The penny never seems to drop. So, I will excerpt again from “The Immigration Scene,” where it was explained that highly-skilled and educated South Africans can petition destination countries to emigrate. The rest haven’t a hope in hell of getting into the USA. However, even highly-skilled immigrants are weeded out indirectly in the American immigration system, which,

“selects for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking … An example should clarify what I mean by ‘select for low moral character’: Most of our South-African friends, all highly qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t ‘wait their turn,’ as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave the U.S. within ten days. What responsible, caring, family man would subject his dependents to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the US illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an ‘argument’ I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less). But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to weigh opportunity costs and plan for the future, rather than say ‘mañana’ to tomorrow and live for today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do with.”

The H-1B visa or the O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa are the most popular in gaining entry into the USA. They are predicted on a job offer and are not easily attained (as you will see, if you bother to read the above-linked article).

Other work visas are easily obtained if you’re a law breaker, speak Spanish, are uneducated, and are not Caucasian—there are very few rational ways of getting into the US. The US simply selects for low moral character and a lack of professional accomplishment in its immigration-policy proclivities and sympathies.

As for the family reunification system, in the case that a candidate has family in the US (see “Please, Can My Sister Become An Illegal Immigrant?”), old parents can come right away. The younger, productive siblings of a permanent resident, such as my sister, are last on the legal waiting list. With backlogs running to 4 million cases, she may have to wait well over a decade, if not two, to come to the US legally.

Since Third-World immigrants have larger families, they will crowd out the smaller family units of the Afrikaner or Anglo- South African in vying for this category of visa. Thus, the US immigration policies also favors the Third World.

Please search my blog– and articles archives under Immigration and South Africa if you want to find out more about how near-impossible it is for some of the hardest working people in the world to come to the USA legally. You can purchase my book, out on May 10, and read up about the odd illegal white South African being sent packing back to South Africa by American justices.

But do wake up about America; it opens its arms only to a certain kind of oppressed refugee.