On the 9th of November 1989 the Berlin wall came down, by December 1991 the mighty Soviet Union was dissolved and Communism, which had once vied with free market capitalism for total global dominance, was dead. Received opinion regards this fall as largely an event that had unipolar consequences, but of course, drastic changes which affect globally influential institutions have global consequences.
Which brings us to the Golden Age: the fifties. In terms of the balance between crime, security, public trust, standard of living, technological innovation, national unity and personal happiness, the fifties were perhaps the zenith of Euro-American culture; a time described by author, Bill Bryson as, "a happy time, when almost everything was good". Of course, such was the lingering and disparate impact of WWII that the fifties didn't happen in Europe until the seventies. The best evidence to support the view that the fifties was a uniquely serene and happy time for the Anglosphere is the great lengths that the establishment and intelligentsia have gone to disparage this era and dismiss it's happiness and prosperity as a "myth", in doing so dragging every minor and ever present negative occurrence centre stage and illuminating it in a klieg light of hostile propaganda.
The great achievement of the fifties was the elevation of millions of American workers, who had
previously lived financially precarious lives to a position of unprecedented security and affluence.
The standard explanation for this new paradigm is the industrial and social afterglow of victory in WWII, yet great technological progress and wealth are not historically associated with improvements in the lives of the working classes. The agricultural and industrial revolutions in England were times of great oppression and degradation for the English working man.
There are many, many differences between industrial revolutionary England and post WWII America, but with respect to the democratization of affluence there is one salient difference which is always overlooked: the existence of a seductive, threatening, active and powerful, proselytizing alternative system: Communism. To a large and overlooked extent Euro-American workers owed their new affluence to Communism, and the threat it extended to Western elites. Western elites distributed wealth
to seduce Western workers away from the siren call of revolution.
Bearing this in mind it's possible to understand the post-Communist era as a time of the waning of the
power of the Western worker and a great restructuring and repossession of power and wealth. the principle weapon of the elites in this grab has been mass immigration. The vast numbers of poor workers imported from outwith the "free" West are a tool to destroy the ability of Western workers to resist and organize against the diminution of their standards of living and command of wages.
Wednesday 20 April 2016
Thursday 17 December 2015
The First Humans Were White
This is a comment posted on the blog of Lee John Barnes on the subject of mankind's African origins and the racial implications raised. An important related subject that might shed some light on the questions raised would concern mankind's nakedness and when and why we lost our hair (persistence hunting?).
.....................
Using the standard reference from the Bradshaw foundation infographic, homo sapiens first emerged in East Africa around 150,000 years ago. According to the Bradshaw Foundation's climate timeline, the planet was six degrees colder at this point in time. Since black pigmentation is an adaptation to heat, it would seem very unlikely that the first humans were black. The most ancient Africans, the San, are noticeably less black than many other black African populations.
Black skinned hominids like the Gorilla are uniformly black: they have jet black hands and feet. Other primates, like the Chimpanzee, have white skin. Black Africans have white palms and the soles of their feet are white, indicating that their black pigmentation is a later adaptation to climate conditions and not indicative of a prototypical "human" phenotype.
Going back to the Bradshaw Foundation we see that an archaic branch of homo sapien (the modern San and Khoisan) were the sole inhabitants of that continent who slowly spread and multiplied in isolation. As the earth's climate warmed they acquired some phenotypic adaptations in conformity with environmental imperatives, but not enough to turn them into analogues of their noticeably more black fellow Africans.
The bulk of the modern "Black" African population are not directly related to the San however; begging the question, "where did they come from?". Once again the Bradshaw Foundation supplies the answer; by 40,000 BC the Asian branch of homo sapiens arrived in Europe, in 10,000 BC a branch of the (undoubtedly not black) Eurasian diaspora reentered Africa. These Eurasians began to interbreed with the archaic indigenous branch of homo sapiens and acquire adaptations to environment Through selection and miscegenation, and just as European humans preserve relic DNA from interbreeding with non-human Neanderthals, black Africans also have indeterminate relic DNA from ancient and indeterminate non-human sources. Modern Blacks are a recent hybrid race and not ancient at all.
We must also take note of the difference between being physiologically "modern" and being behaviorally modern. The first evidence of modern behavior in homo sapiens is exhibited in Europe (among white humans) during the Aurignacian revolution. This revolution almost certainly correlates with a rapid increase in intelligence among this branch of humanity.
White Europeans are likely to be the only truly modern human beings on the planet. Modern Blacks are a hybrid race, composed of archaic homo sapien genes and those of lithic period Eurasian invaders.
Humanity may have traveled from Africa, but black Africans were created in Africa and are a unique and recent sub-division of humanity.
.....................
Using the standard reference from the Bradshaw foundation infographic, homo sapiens first emerged in East Africa around 150,000 years ago. According to the Bradshaw Foundation's climate timeline, the planet was six degrees colder at this point in time. Since black pigmentation is an adaptation to heat, it would seem very unlikely that the first humans were black. The most ancient Africans, the San, are noticeably less black than many other black African populations.
Black skinned hominids like the Gorilla are uniformly black: they have jet black hands and feet. Other primates, like the Chimpanzee, have white skin. Black Africans have white palms and the soles of their feet are white, indicating that their black pigmentation is a later adaptation to climate conditions and not indicative of a prototypical "human" phenotype.
Going back to the Bradshaw Foundation we see that an archaic branch of homo sapien (the modern San and Khoisan) were the sole inhabitants of that continent who slowly spread and multiplied in isolation. As the earth's climate warmed they acquired some phenotypic adaptations in conformity with environmental imperatives, but not enough to turn them into analogues of their noticeably more black fellow Africans.
The bulk of the modern "Black" African population are not directly related to the San however; begging the question, "where did they come from?". Once again the Bradshaw Foundation supplies the answer; by 40,000 BC the Asian branch of homo sapiens arrived in Europe, in 10,000 BC a branch of the (undoubtedly not black) Eurasian diaspora reentered Africa. These Eurasians began to interbreed with the archaic indigenous branch of homo sapiens and acquire adaptations to environment Through selection and miscegenation, and just as European humans preserve relic DNA from interbreeding with non-human Neanderthals, black Africans also have indeterminate relic DNA from ancient and indeterminate non-human sources. Modern Blacks are a recent hybrid race and not ancient at all.
We must also take note of the difference between being physiologically "modern" and being behaviorally modern. The first evidence of modern behavior in homo sapiens is exhibited in Europe (among white humans) during the Aurignacian revolution. This revolution almost certainly correlates with a rapid increase in intelligence among this branch of humanity.
White Europeans are likely to be the only truly modern human beings on the planet. Modern Blacks are a hybrid race, composed of archaic homo sapien genes and those of lithic period Eurasian invaders.
Humanity may have traveled from Africa, but black Africans were created in Africa and are a unique and recent sub-division of humanity.
Monday 30 November 2015
Why People Believe Nonsense Like LGBT
People use the faculty of reason to evaluate new ideas. When ideas have been positively evaluated people become emotionally committed to these ideas. Reason is used to assimilate new ideas, these ideas are then invested with emotion. Rational challenge to assimilated knowledge provoke emotional responses. Emotionally invested ideas are defended at an emotional level. Emotion, anger, fear, pride or shame, engages reason in its defence, thus, what began in reason terminates in rationalization; the employment of reason to support prejudice.
Very intelligent people are very good at using reason, so the prejudices of very intelligent people can very successfully pass themselves off as the products of reason, rather than the usurpers of reason. I think this explains the brilliant Christian apologist, William Lane Craig and, at the other end of the scale, the global warming science circus.
It's probably useful to define what intelligence is at this point. Intelligence can best be summed up as being the ability to productively solve problems. This skill essentially rests upon an ability to see beyond the immediate and obvious potentialities of objects and systems. The material evidence of intelligence is progressive improvement. Because progress means a departure from past ideas and beliefs there is a tendency for any new ideas that diverge from previous ideas, to be regarded as progressive ideas; all progress entails change, but all change is not progress, though much regressive change is regarded erroneously as progress.
A striking example of this is how "progressive" intellectuals regard Islam. Islam is simply a worldview that was once also dominant in the West under the mantel of Catholicism, but which was dispensed with centuries ago as archaic and limiting in light of new discoveries about the world and by new freedoms enabled by technological innovation. Marie Antoinette's dressmaker is said to have said, "There is nothing new except that which has been forgotten", and in the West, the stifling and oppressive influence of fundamentalist religious belief waned so long ago that we have developed a cultural amnesia to the extent that this world view seems novel to some people. It's novelty is actually seen by some as progressive. More intelligent people understand that its ideas are, in and off themselves, regressive, but seem to believe that incorporating these ideas into the Western worldview will result in an amalgamation of ancient and modern that will transcend our present paradigm, as if allowing children to scribble on Rembrandt's self portraits would enhance their beauty.
In one respect the leftist liberals are right, modernity has exhausted itself, but double doses of medicine for ailments long since cured are its only answers to an obvious intellectual impasse, more tolerance, more equality, more empathy...more absurdity. We need innovation to progress and nature is, by the very mechanism of evolution, progressive; what is not advancing is dying; all is flux. The foundation of innovation is revaluation. We must as a culture reavaluate our core beliefs.
The core belief of modernity is equality, everything that supports equality is good and anything that challenges equality is bad. This itself is an example of a false, good versus evil, duality that is a legacy of our despised Christian heritage. If something is good, the more you have of it the better, if something is bad any manifestation of it is evil. If equality is good in terms of opportunity to profit from talent, equality must be good when employed to evaluate talent, thus everyone is equally free to be mediocre. In fact such a dichotomy is obvious nonsense. If three glasses of wine makes you more sociable and conversationally adept, three bottles don't make you supremely sociable and conversationally brilliant. A sprinkling of salt makes a pot of soup taste better, so a mug full of salt should make it perfect? Nonsense! Aristotle exposed this fallacy centuries before the coming of the Christ in his dictum that for every virtue there were two vices; bravery is neither the absence of fear or the absence of courage, but an intelligent balance of the two opposites. equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome.
Anti-modern elements are emerging which renounce radical equality and advocate a return to aristocratic and hierarchical forms of government, but these elements of neo-reaction have forgotten that the previous ossified aristocratic and social systems were not efficient and when transcended the result was an explosion in human creativity. Social privilege was 100% heritable, but ability is not 100% heritable, if it was we would have long reigning dynasties of athletic champions. Enshrined hierarchy is simply the opposite of an extreme that terminates at the opposite pole in institutionalized egalitarianism. The virtuous median between the two destructive extremes is meritocracy.
Very intelligent people are very good at using reason, so the prejudices of very intelligent people can very successfully pass themselves off as the products of reason, rather than the usurpers of reason. I think this explains the brilliant Christian apologist, William Lane Craig and, at the other end of the scale, the global warming science circus.
It's probably useful to define what intelligence is at this point. Intelligence can best be summed up as being the ability to productively solve problems. This skill essentially rests upon an ability to see beyond the immediate and obvious potentialities of objects and systems. The material evidence of intelligence is progressive improvement. Because progress means a departure from past ideas and beliefs there is a tendency for any new ideas that diverge from previous ideas, to be regarded as progressive ideas; all progress entails change, but all change is not progress, though much regressive change is regarded erroneously as progress.
A striking example of this is how "progressive" intellectuals regard Islam. Islam is simply a worldview that was once also dominant in the West under the mantel of Catholicism, but which was dispensed with centuries ago as archaic and limiting in light of new discoveries about the world and by new freedoms enabled by technological innovation. Marie Antoinette's dressmaker is said to have said, "There is nothing new except that which has been forgotten", and in the West, the stifling and oppressive influence of fundamentalist religious belief waned so long ago that we have developed a cultural amnesia to the extent that this world view seems novel to some people. It's novelty is actually seen by some as progressive. More intelligent people understand that its ideas are, in and off themselves, regressive, but seem to believe that incorporating these ideas into the Western worldview will result in an amalgamation of ancient and modern that will transcend our present paradigm, as if allowing children to scribble on Rembrandt's self portraits would enhance their beauty.
In one respect the leftist liberals are right, modernity has exhausted itself, but double doses of medicine for ailments long since cured are its only answers to an obvious intellectual impasse, more tolerance, more equality, more empathy...more absurdity. We need innovation to progress and nature is, by the very mechanism of evolution, progressive; what is not advancing is dying; all is flux. The foundation of innovation is revaluation. We must as a culture reavaluate our core beliefs.
The core belief of modernity is equality, everything that supports equality is good and anything that challenges equality is bad. This itself is an example of a false, good versus evil, duality that is a legacy of our despised Christian heritage. If something is good, the more you have of it the better, if something is bad any manifestation of it is evil. If equality is good in terms of opportunity to profit from talent, equality must be good when employed to evaluate talent, thus everyone is equally free to be mediocre. In fact such a dichotomy is obvious nonsense. If three glasses of wine makes you more sociable and conversationally adept, three bottles don't make you supremely sociable and conversationally brilliant. A sprinkling of salt makes a pot of soup taste better, so a mug full of salt should make it perfect? Nonsense! Aristotle exposed this fallacy centuries before the coming of the Christ in his dictum that for every virtue there were two vices; bravery is neither the absence of fear or the absence of courage, but an intelligent balance of the two opposites. equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome.
Anti-modern elements are emerging which renounce radical equality and advocate a return to aristocratic and hierarchical forms of government, but these elements of neo-reaction have forgotten that the previous ossified aristocratic and social systems were not efficient and when transcended the result was an explosion in human creativity. Social privilege was 100% heritable, but ability is not 100% heritable, if it was we would have long reigning dynasties of athletic champions. Enshrined hierarchy is simply the opposite of an extreme that terminates at the opposite pole in institutionalized egalitarianism. The virtuous median between the two destructive extremes is meritocracy.
Friday 26 June 2015
Goodbye Norway
Norway needs skilled immigrants...why? Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, it has a highly educated population, a first class infrastructure, abundant natural resources and a population that is commensurate with these resources.
With regard to "skilled migrants", if we take the case (as someone raised) of the Indian doctor, India has 276 million people living on less than $1.25 per day, to deprive these people of doctors, to asset strip such a desperate country of its most qualified people, is immoral and racist.
Why do many Westerners support mass immigration? Western populations are not monolithic, mass-immigration is cultural and ethnic suicide in the long term, and economically detrimental to the majority even in the short term, however a minority of culturally powerful interest groups benefit from mass immigration. Mass immigration enriches many people by lowering wages, makes labour more tractable and increase the value of property and rents. It also expands the service sector which means bourgeois liberals benefit from a proliferation of cheap cafes, restaurants, bars and retail opportunities: cheap au pairs, cleaners, gardeners, decorators, plumbers and electricians.
In the case of politicians, mass immigration increases the power of bureaucratic institutions by expanding its client base. Expansion of the bureaucratic client base is also the reason for the creation of gender politics and policies of non-assimilative ethnic identification. Since almost everyone who works in the media belongs to the socio-economic niche that benefits from mass-immigration the narrative of mass immigration is solely in the control of a Western minority who benefit from its positive portrayal. This is enhanced by the fact that this strata of society also hates and looks down upon the social demographic that is directly and immediately disenfranchised by mass-immigration.
With regard to "skilled migrants", if we take the case (as someone raised) of the Indian doctor, India has 276 million people living on less than $1.25 per day, to deprive these people of doctors, to asset strip such a desperate country of its most qualified people, is immoral and racist.
Why do many Westerners support mass immigration? Western populations are not monolithic, mass-immigration is cultural and ethnic suicide in the long term, and economically detrimental to the majority even in the short term, however a minority of culturally powerful interest groups benefit from mass immigration. Mass immigration enriches many people by lowering wages, makes labour more tractable and increase the value of property and rents. It also expands the service sector which means bourgeois liberals benefit from a proliferation of cheap cafes, restaurants, bars and retail opportunities: cheap au pairs, cleaners, gardeners, decorators, plumbers and electricians.
In the case of politicians, mass immigration increases the power of bureaucratic institutions by expanding its client base. Expansion of the bureaucratic client base is also the reason for the creation of gender politics and policies of non-assimilative ethnic identification. Since almost everyone who works in the media belongs to the socio-economic niche that benefits from mass-immigration the narrative of mass immigration is solely in the control of a Western minority who benefit from its positive portrayal. This is enhanced by the fact that this strata of society also hates and looks down upon the social demographic that is directly and immediately disenfranchised by mass-immigration.
It's Not Terrorism If You are White
The latest liberal meme. If you are black or brown you're a terrorist; if you are white you're mentally ill...unless you are 25 year old, Nick Salvadore, a black Muslim who beheaded 82 year old, white, Palmira Silva. According to the Daily Telegraph...
"Some residents claimed last night that the suspect was a local man who had converted to Islam last year, but those claims could not be verified. Detectives said they had ruled out terrorism"
Or Thomas Evans, the White Beast. The white Muslim Al Shabaab terrorist killed in Kenya recently.
Or white Norwegian, Anders Breivik who is, according to Wikipedia, "a far-right Norwegian Terrorist".
Nick Salvadore was a black Muslim, he was also clearly mental, and quite rightly (albeit with haste that indicates that the Police could not possibly have known this before they dismissed the speculation) no one appended a race hate/terrorist attribution to this tragic crime.
So the liberals get everything right except their basic facts, but who needs facts when you have a narrative?
The most prominent and successful terrorist groups in the world today are Muslim, and most Muslims are brown skinned. No one has any compunction about calling these brown skinned terrorist, terrorists, which is probably welcome news to the surviving relatives of their victims, who are overwhelmingly also brown skinned Muslims.
"Some residents claimed last night that the suspect was a local man who had converted to Islam last year, but those claims could not be verified. Detectives said they had ruled out terrorism"
Or Thomas Evans, the White Beast. The white Muslim Al Shabaab terrorist killed in Kenya recently.
Or white Norwegian, Anders Breivik who is, according to Wikipedia, "a far-right Norwegian Terrorist".
Nick Salvadore was a black Muslim, he was also clearly mental, and quite rightly (albeit with haste that indicates that the Police could not possibly have known this before they dismissed the speculation) no one appended a race hate/terrorist attribution to this tragic crime.
So the liberals get everything right except their basic facts, but who needs facts when you have a narrative?
The most prominent and successful terrorist groups in the world today are Muslim, and most Muslims are brown skinned. No one has any compunction about calling these brown skinned terrorist, terrorists, which is probably welcome news to the surviving relatives of their victims, who are overwhelmingly also brown skinned Muslims.
Immigrants Make A Net Contribution...So What?
If you trust government statistics, and they might even be true, immigrants make a net overall contribution to the economy. This positive contribution is cited variously as being between one and three percent. This is good news and a vindication of unregulated, open door immigration, right? Wrong.
Whatever the overall effect of mass-immigration it is self evidentially true that by no means all, and very probably only a small minority of migrants, are making a positive economic contribution. Most of the immigrants that you encounter on a daily basis are employed in bars, shops, restaurants and hotels. A great number who do not fall into this category are employed in low skilled agricultural and factory work. Given that the estimated financial threshold that allows an individual citizen with no dependents to make a positive net contribution to the national finances is around £25,000 per annum, it's pretty clear that most of these migrants that we encounter in our daily are not making a net contribution, and many who are obviously not meeting this criteria do also have dependents. It is vanishingly unlikely that the majority of migrants we encounter in our day to day lives do not constitute the actual majority of migrants in the UK; it is also vanishingly unlikely that the majority of bar workers and baristas are earning 25K, so it is absurd to claim that anything other than a small minority of migrants are making any contribution whatsoever.
The obvious question naturally is, how come the positive balance then? Almost certainly it comes from the same category of high value migrants who were always present as part of the UK working population, city financial high fliers, CEOs, engineers, professors and health care experts and other highly paid professionals; these are people who do not need open borders, asylum laws, or EU treaty obligations to travel to, reside in and settle in countries of their choice.
What we have is the usual liberal logic of finding the right answers whilst failing to ask the right questions. The question is not whether or not the contribution of migrants is of net benefit, or results in a net deficit, it is whether or not the current immigration policy is it the best policy we can have, and is it superior or inferior to the policy it replaced. The present immigration policy is vastly inferior to the previous quality based regulated immigration policy. Having a "nose just above the rising financial tide" immigration policy is not the same as have an optimized and healthy immigration policy. Since the job of the government is to do the best for the people of the country that it serves, it is unconscionable that successive British governments have imposed possibly the most disadvantageous immigration policies imaginable an an unwilling British people. Perhaps the government should place the same restrictions on migrants that it does on invalidity benefit claimants?
Whatever the overall effect of mass-immigration it is self evidentially true that by no means all, and very probably only a small minority of migrants, are making a positive economic contribution. Most of the immigrants that you encounter on a daily basis are employed in bars, shops, restaurants and hotels. A great number who do not fall into this category are employed in low skilled agricultural and factory work. Given that the estimated financial threshold that allows an individual citizen with no dependents to make a positive net contribution to the national finances is around £25,000 per annum, it's pretty clear that most of these migrants that we encounter in our daily are not making a net contribution, and many who are obviously not meeting this criteria do also have dependents. It is vanishingly unlikely that the majority of migrants we encounter in our day to day lives do not constitute the actual majority of migrants in the UK; it is also vanishingly unlikely that the majority of bar workers and baristas are earning 25K, so it is absurd to claim that anything other than a small minority of migrants are making any contribution whatsoever.
The obvious question naturally is, how come the positive balance then? Almost certainly it comes from the same category of high value migrants who were always present as part of the UK working population, city financial high fliers, CEOs, engineers, professors and health care experts and other highly paid professionals; these are people who do not need open borders, asylum laws, or EU treaty obligations to travel to, reside in and settle in countries of their choice.
What we have is the usual liberal logic of finding the right answers whilst failing to ask the right questions. The question is not whether or not the contribution of migrants is of net benefit, or results in a net deficit, it is whether or not the current immigration policy is it the best policy we can have, and is it superior or inferior to the policy it replaced. The present immigration policy is vastly inferior to the previous quality based regulated immigration policy. Having a "nose just above the rising financial tide" immigration policy is not the same as have an optimized and healthy immigration policy. Since the job of the government is to do the best for the people of the country that it serves, it is unconscionable that successive British governments have imposed possibly the most disadvantageous immigration policies imaginable an an unwilling British people. Perhaps the government should place the same restrictions on migrants that it does on invalidity benefit claimants?
More Europeans Emigrate So...
Another stupid argument that attempts to justify mass-immigration; more Italians/Britons/insert target nation of choice, are emigrating than migrants are arriving. The implied conclusion is that immigration is both a necessary measure to replace an outgoing population, and also that those who are concerned about mass-immigration and the social and cultural transformation of European nations are hypocrites.
This is a near perfect example of the apples and oranges fallacy. European emigrants who are not simply part of the circulation of labour within the European economic zone, who are emigrating to Australia or the US for example, are subject to restrictive qualification criteria designed to ensure that they have sufficient funds to support themselves, have a job/sponsor, have relevant qualifications, have no criminal record and are of good character, are of sound health, have no dependents whom their earning capacity will not allow them to support, and are linguistically fluent. The intention behind these qualifications is that immigrants will be high value, solvent, economic contributors employed in areas of the labour market which are undermanned.
Mass-immigration is unregulated migration in which the subjects gain right of residence based on supranational legal obligations and claimed refugee status. It is the job of the host nation to disprove, rather than the migrant to prove their status. The European migrant must first prove his case to gain entry to his desired future country, the non-European has a right of residence unless his case is specifically disproved, so we have two diametrically opposed categories of migration yoked together into a false equivalence by liberal ideologues.
Populations cannot simply be exchanged with no effect without regard to qualitative differences between the subject groups anymore than any random eleven men can be signed up to take part in a first division football match. Unregulated immigration systems will by their very nature contain a far higher percentage of unsuitable, unworthy and unqualified persons, more criminals, more uneducated people, more people with dependents, more of the sick, more of the dishonest and more incapable people. This in turn creates a paradigm in which those with suitable qualifications (high value members of society) have more incentive to emigrate; what the liberal elite cite as a justification for immigration is in fact a major cause of mass-emigration. Indigenous people are fleeing from a country which has fewer opportunities, is less safe, has a housing shortage an overburdened health sector and failing schools. The tragedy is that it is the best of our population that has the required skills and finances to resettle in more opportune lands.We have a situation, if effect, in which we are paying with golden sovereigns and being repaid in brass buttons.
This is a near perfect example of the apples and oranges fallacy. European emigrants who are not simply part of the circulation of labour within the European economic zone, who are emigrating to Australia or the US for example, are subject to restrictive qualification criteria designed to ensure that they have sufficient funds to support themselves, have a job/sponsor, have relevant qualifications, have no criminal record and are of good character, are of sound health, have no dependents whom their earning capacity will not allow them to support, and are linguistically fluent. The intention behind these qualifications is that immigrants will be high value, solvent, economic contributors employed in areas of the labour market which are undermanned.
Mass-immigration is unregulated migration in which the subjects gain right of residence based on supranational legal obligations and claimed refugee status. It is the job of the host nation to disprove, rather than the migrant to prove their status. The European migrant must first prove his case to gain entry to his desired future country, the non-European has a right of residence unless his case is specifically disproved, so we have two diametrically opposed categories of migration yoked together into a false equivalence by liberal ideologues.
Populations cannot simply be exchanged with no effect without regard to qualitative differences between the subject groups anymore than any random eleven men can be signed up to take part in a first division football match. Unregulated immigration systems will by their very nature contain a far higher percentage of unsuitable, unworthy and unqualified persons, more criminals, more uneducated people, more people with dependents, more of the sick, more of the dishonest and more incapable people. This in turn creates a paradigm in which those with suitable qualifications (high value members of society) have more incentive to emigrate; what the liberal elite cite as a justification for immigration is in fact a major cause of mass-emigration. Indigenous people are fleeing from a country which has fewer opportunities, is less safe, has a housing shortage an overburdened health sector and failing schools. The tragedy is that it is the best of our population that has the required skills and finances to resettle in more opportune lands.We have a situation, if effect, in which we are paying with golden sovereigns and being repaid in brass buttons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)