Tag: immigration

Abraham Lincoln Used Immigration As A Method Of War And Democide

Back in 1864, as he was looking for ways to finish off the rebellious South that wanted to stay with the original interpretation of the American Constitution, President Abraham Lincoln signed an act to encourage immigration:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a Commissioner of Immigration, who shall be subject to the direction of the Department of State, shall hold his office for four years, and shall receive a salary at the rate of $2,500 a year. The said Commissioner may employ not more than three clerks, of such grade as the Secretary of State shall designate, to be appointed by him, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and to hold their offices at his pleasure.

And what is the purpose of this act?

And be it further enacted; That no emigrant to the United States who shall arrive after the passage of this act shall be compulsively enrolled for military service during the existing insurrection, unless such emigrant shall voluntarily renounce under oath his allegiance to the country of his birth, and declare his intention to become a citizen of the United States.

Declare your intention to become a citizen and you can join the military. That is relevant because:

And be it further enacted, That all contracts that shall be made by emigrants to the United States in foreign countries, in conformity to regulations that may be established by the said Commissioner, whereby emigrants shall pledge the wages of their labor for a term not exceeding twelve months to repay the expenses of their emigration, shall be held to be valid in law

In your homeland, you can sign up for a one-year stint in the American military and have Uncle Sam pay to bring you over. Aha.

And be it further enacted, That there shall be established in the City of New-York an office to be known as the United States Emigrant Office; and there shall be appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an officer for said City, to be known as Superintendent of Immigration, at an annual salary of two thousand dollars; and the said Superintendent may employ a clerk of the first class; and such Superintendent shall, under the direction of the Commissioner of Immigration, make contracts with the different railroads and transportation companies of the United States for transportation tickets, to be furnished to such immigrants, and to be paid for by them, and shall, under such rules as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration, protect such immigrants from imposition and fraud, and shall furnish them such information and facilities as will enable them to proceed in the cheapest and most expeditious manner to the place of their destination.

Government will help relocate them…

APPROVED, July 4,1864.

…and it goes into law on a symbolic date.

Lincoln was fighting a long war against the South, and he wanted to crush them permanently, and could think of no better method than importing an army, then settling it in the conquered lands, so that he could break up the ethnic populations there. As Plato predicted, importing foreigners was a method of staying in power and also, crushing the population and making them subservient.

Nancy Pelosi Accuses Donald Trump Of Trying To Make America White Again (MAWA)

Trying to make sense of the complex coalition of grievances — feminism, minorities, youth, disabled, criminals — that they have assembled, the Left came right out and accused president Donald Trump of majoritarianism. This is a typical stage in diversity where, since the society is divided, one group forms a coalition of the discontented and the other aims for protection of the historical majority.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of waging an “unmistakable campaign to make America white again”:

Trump’s proposal would offer a path to citizenship for 1.8 million so-called “Dreamers.” He would insist on $25 billion in funding for a border wall and security. The proposal also called for a crackdown on chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program.

Pelosi wrote in a statement on Friday that the 50 percent cut to legal immigration and the “recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda. They are part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”

At this point in the diversity game, the social breakdown predicted by Plato and Aristotle, and documented by Robert Putnam, has occurred. Putnam found that diversity causes people to become alienated from one another; Haidt follows up on this by pointing out that diversity erodes culture. This begins with the lack of a sense of what the society is, since it no longer means a tribe and now relies on amorphous financial, legal, and socioeconomic definitions.

If Donald Trump defends the majority, he will be accused of racism because that is how his actions appear to a coalition of those who want to remove the majority from power; if he defends the coalition, he will be seen as participating in the ongoing genocide of the majority (frequently called “white genocide” despite the murkiness of the term “white”) and his base will abandon him.

As usual, diversity becomes genocide when the instability of diversity becomes clear. We are at a fork in the road: either we admit that diversity has failed, at which point we become “racists” arguing for a monotribalist American ethnostate, or we double down on diversity, at which point we signal that we are in favor of the ethnic destruction of the majority.

Why Europe Suicides: Nobodies Becoming Somebodies

Finally we are seeing some attention to the genocide of European peoples by their elected leaders, revealed in a new book by Douglas Murray which explores Euro-suicide as a psychology:

The in-migration was initially hailed as an economic boon; then as a necessary corrective to an aging population; then as a means of spicing up society through “diversity”; and finally as a fait accompli, an unstoppable wave wrought by the world’s gathering globalization. Besides, argued the elites, the new arrivals would all become assimilated into the European culture eventually, so what’s the problem?

As British journalist and author Douglas Murray writes, “Promised throughout their lifetimes that the changes were temporary, that the changes were not real, or that the changes did not signify anything, Europeans discovered that in the lifespan of people now alive they would become minorities in their own countries.”

…A key point of the book, reinforced through anecdote and abundant documentation, is that Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into their European host countries to any meaningful extent. Indeed, there is a growing feeling among many of the new arrivals that these aren’t host countries at all but merely lands ripe for Islam’s inexorable expansion.

…Murray explains the motivation of those who engage in such flights of moral dudgeon thus: “Rather than being people responsible for themselves and answerable to those they know, they become the self-appointed representatives of the living and the dead, the bearers of a terrible history as well as the potential redeemers of mankind. From being a nobody one becomes a somebody.”

In other words: individualism.

To be pro-diversity is to assume the role of a wise sage, a powerful king, and a godlike emperor all in one. It makes people feel smarter and more powerful than their neighbors and, in an age where everyone is made equal, the only real resource is being unique or more powerful than someone else. They need to find someone else to be better than.

In the meantime, all of the excuses for immigration turn out to be lies, because the real goal of those in power is to destroy any impediment to the expansion of their commercial, political, and social interests. How did we get leaders like this? We elected them, and by doing it repeatedly, created a political environment so toxic that no one of any sanity would enter it because they knew they would lose.

And so we have elevated to the level of elite those who are merely opportunists and actors willing to pantomime the play onstage. They know the right thing to say after every tragedy; they know how to connect powerful people, siphon money, reveal opportunity, and manage a system in which the conclusions are extensions of the assumptions. “More equality” and “more business” are always the right answers.

Original Western European society kept individualism in check with a strong sense of culture, religion, heritage, and purpose. With egalitarianism, purpose was lost, because it created a hierarchy based on who could achieve it, and that debunked and invalidated equality as a notion. So we junked it, and now, we have criminal actors on a stage made up of insanity as the whole thing sinks into the mire.

Why Invasive Species Prosper: Less Specific Knowledge, Fewer Enemies

A new study on the genomes of reeds gives us an insight into what gives invasive species an upper hand over native ones:

“Smaller genomes are more nimble,” she said. “They can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes.”

The findings of the research team raise the question of why plants with small genomes are more likely to become invasive. She thinks they have the answer.

“The main theoretical reason has to do with minimum generation time,” she explained. “The idea is that a smaller genome can be replicated more quickly than a larger genome. So if a plant is in a stressful environment, it can be replicated more quickly than if it had a larger genome. It needs fewer resources and can use its resources quickly to reproduce before its luck runs out.

“On the other hand, a smaller genome also means that it may lose genes that are potentially beneficial,” added Pyšek, the first author of the paper. “So there may be a trade-off.”

Smaller genomes means fewer instructions, which means a generalist — “can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes” — with fewer genes coded to specific adaptations such as would anchor a plant in one environment. This generalist status means that the plant has a lower burden of fitting into an ecosystem and therefore, more energy to reproduce, and a simpler form to reproduce as well.

As time goes on, such plants become adapted because the ones that develop specific adaptations become more efficient. They therefore have more energy than their less-specialized cousins, and gradually genetically predominate. The same will be true of invasive animals, including humans. The ones that are least adapted to their specific country of origin, and therefore most generalized and simplest, will arrive in new lands and out-reproduce the natives, displacing them and eventually, genetically absorbing them.

In effect, this is a “race to the bottom” where simpler species constantly overwhelm and destroy more complex ones, unless the environment is hostile enough that generalists do not thrive in it because they lack the specific adaptations.

Invasive species have another advantage, which is that they lack the predators and enemies that they had back in their homelands, while invasive species must contend with such others, meaning that all of the energy which would have to go to defending the invasive species can instead be invested in reproduction:

“Our native Phragmites in North America is getting hammered by both native and introduced insects, whereas the invasive Phragmites in North America suffers far less herbivory than it does in its native Europe,” she said. “That’s partly because when invasives are introduced to a new place, they leave their enemies behind and can devote their resources to greater growth.”

The same applies to immigration. People of simpler genomes, with fewer specific adaptations, can abandon their enemies at home and gain an easy foothold abroad. At that point, the only thing that holds them back is xenophobic elitism on the part of the natives, who will recognize assimilation in progress and resist it, at least if not restrained by government and media.