Fjordman has written yet another epochal essay; a clarion call for the citizens of the West to take back control of our democracies:
... when I look at Europe today, I see democracies under threat because of an elaborate Eurabian bureaucracy and Islamic fanaticism. I see countries unwilling or unable to defend themselves against massive immigration/colonization.
Even in the USA, the most astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the élites “think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people.” As columnist Tony Blankley wrote, the Senate was prepared to “legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public.” Eight out of ten Americans wanted the borders closed to millions of illegal immigrants, yet nothing substantial has been done. There has to be a reason for this.
In the Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark – [and also in Belgium] foreign citizens, though not illegals, are allowed to vote in local elections. As Roger Scruton points out, Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. A nation that refuses to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot survive.
It is more than a little ironic that people calling for restrictions of immigration are denounced as “anti-democratic forces” when it is the other way around. The most fundamental democratic right of all must be to decide who should be allowed to move into your home. Freedom of speech and immigration control should not be outsourced to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or the UN.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
I think that last line bears repeating:
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.
9 comments:
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/9558/
Worth reading this link about a report issued by the CIS. They apparently spoke to Democrat and Republican lawmakers about why they were so in favour of immigration to the US. The answers are particularly frightening-
The Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power.
And this-
While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
Thanks for doing what you do. I thought you might enjoy an academic book review of a work of Dr. Richard Lynn, University of Ulster, in England, discussing race and intelligence. It basically looks at 620 IQ studies covering the scores of 813,000 individuals and maps the results. An executive summary of the results: Japanese-107; East Asian-106; European-100; Turkey-90; Africans residing in the West-85; Middle Easterners-84; Africans in Africa-71; Bushmen-54. The author attributes the scores of the two lowest groups to poor nutrition.
A quick, good spirited jab at our European UN friends-the highest scoring subgroup of Europeans was from North America, attributed to ‘Selective Migration’. The same Professor recently studied the IQs of British Jews (different study) and found them in the range of 110-113. And now a cheap shot because I just can’t help myself: if Kofi had only had Wheaties…
Read the review at:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php
Well.... I don't know about the IQ tests. Were they the same test given to all participants or different IQ tests depending upon their cultural background? I have to agree with at least one thing that came out f the leftist multicultural movement – that the standard Euro-American IQ test does not work for other ethnic groups.
Case in point. If there were questions from a Bedouin IQ test on knowledge of the desert and the desert culture, I bet North Americans would fail it miserably.
IQ, I dare say, has less to do with nutrition and much more to do with one's cultural and linguistic abilities. The more complex one's language and the differentiations it allows one to realize or see, the smarter one will become. And, btw, Ulster is not in England.
Pastorius, re your repetition, exactly! So much of what we are talking about in the blogosphere comes down to a tension between the poles of empire and nationhood. The latter is the pole of democratic self-rule, and maximized freedom and order in the world. That's something that Ulstermen have long known.
Jay Mac,
I also suspect that IQ measures a certain kind of intelligence. For instance, I am a musician. Being a person who is intimately involved in music, it is clear to me that music requires a kind of intelligence that is not measured by IQ tests.
The kind of intelligence that is measured by IQ tests is rational intelligence.
My point is that if a culture emphasizes a certain kind of intelligence, the IQ scores of that culture will be higher in that area.
Conversely, if a particular group of people is denied encouragement in certain areas, then that group of people will not perform as well in those areas.
Just remember, schools in the United States are funded by the property taxes of local areas. Therefore, if your property isn't worth much, then your schools are going to be shit.
This is one of the last great inequities in the U.S. if you ask me.
I meant the above comment to be directed to WC, not Jay-Mac. Sorry.
TruePeers,
The reason I thought it needed repeating was because the first time I read the essay, it kind of just went right past me. Sometimes we are so used to hearing certain phrases that they lose signifigance.
How many of us have really ever thought about the fact that the government is trying to enact immigration policies without consulting the people? In fact, they are doing so against the will of the people.
As Dag has pointed out in the past, this is a form of coup d'etat.
yes P, in theory and to some extent in reality the government is elected by the people. But a totalitarian political correctness along with the economic self-interest of the elite in cheap labour and the lifestyle it buys them (probably a short term economic gain but a long term dependence on cheap labour might not be good for the economy, for providing an impetus for technological innovation) creates a kind of moral blackmail that allows many elites to justify their positions by running self-righteous roughshod over the "racist" will of the majority.
TruePeers,
Well said.
As Pim's Ghost has been saying, we need to start a new political party in America; called the Tea Party.
Post a Comment