Thursday, August 20, 2015

That Pesky 14th Amendment

Before a few days ago, hardly anybody even knew about the 14th Amendment or had any idea what birthright citizenship was based on. Indeed, I'll bet a lot of people believed, and still do, that birthright citizenship is some kind of universal rule that applies to all countries, and that questioning it is crazy or evil or something.

No. Plenty of countries don't go with that thinking at all. Just consider, for a minute, how silly it is. Imagine that if a pregnant woman slipped into your house or even your yard and gave birth without your invitation. Would the child be automatically a member of your family? Would you be responsible for its care and feeding? Would it automatically be included in your will, to inherit to the same degree as your actual offspring? No, that would be ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than birthright citizenship.

But back to that 14th Amendment — We've been hearing from lots of 'conservative' sources, like the stealth-flaming-liberal Bill O'Reilly, that the Amendment confers citizenship on the offspring of illegal aliens and that's all there is to it, and there's no point in arguing about it. One libertarian friend of mine said much the same thing, and added that other good court decisions have been based on the 14th, and we'd lose them if the 14th were changed or repealed.  Well, no. There's nothing in that Amendment that confers such citizenship. It's all about the citizenship of former slaves who were born under the jurisdiction of the United States. That did not include American Indians born here, because they were considered to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments. And it did not include the children of illegal aliens, because they were under the jurisdiction of their countries of origin. Twisting the Amendment to include such births is a complete perversion of the intent of the law, and, it can be argued, of the letter of the law when understood properly.  But what do I know? Here's what Ann Coulter says, over at

“[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent”: Fox News Blowhards v. U.S. Supreme Court, in re 14th Amendment (Ann Coulter)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

[See my VDARE review of Ann Coulter’s new book,Adios, America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole!]

Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14th Amendment
August 19, 2015

Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump –He's a buffoon! He's a clown! He calls people names! He's too conservative! He's not conservative enough! He won't give details! His details won't work! – I gather certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.

These same Republicans never object to other candidates who lack traditional presidential resumes -- Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, to name a few. I'm beginning to suspect it's all about Trump's opposition to mass immigration from the Third World.

Amid the hysteria, Trump is the only one speaking clearly and logically, while his detractors keep making utter asses of themselves.

By my count -- so far -- Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the nation's history known as "the Civil War." They seem to believe that the post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal aliens would be citizens, "anchor babies," who can then bring in the whole family. (You wouldn't want to break up families, would you?)

As FNC's Bill O'Reilly authoritatively informed Donald Trump on Tuesday night: "The 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American!"

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren't what we call "readers."

Still, how could anyone – even a not-very-bright person – imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don't think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens' kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario – just one scenario – where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn't have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

You know what's really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen! 

Damn straight they should!

We've got to codify that. 


No, it isn't, but that amendment will pass like wildfire! 

It's like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn't; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

"Luckily," as FNC's Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an "expert" to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox's senior judicial analyst.

Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War – and then
went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to – I quote – "make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them."

Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court explained -- and not for the first or last time -- "was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.

Of course it's easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924."

Yeah, Trump's the idiot. Or as Bream said to Napolitano after his completely insane analysis, "I feel smarter just having been in your presence."

The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn't just come out and say "black people" is that -- despite our Constitution being the product of vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates) -- the Constitution never, ever mentions race.

Nonetheless, until Fox News' scholars weighed in, there was little confusion about the purpose of the 14th Amendment. It was to "correct" -- as Jack Nicholson said in "The Shining" -- the Democrats, who refused to acknowledge that they lost the Civil War and had to start treating black people like citizens.

On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O'Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: "YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU'RE BORN HERE YOU'RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!" (No, Bill -- there's no period. More like: "comma," to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)

But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:

"Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the 'courts have stumbled on the subject,' it would be prudent to remove the 'doubt thrown over' it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen's right of citizenship because of birth."

It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.

The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic -- the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation's history known as "the American Revolution."

Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography -- as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with thiscountry. Thus, under the majority's logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects.

As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about what again? That's right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that's a whole order of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border, drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn't catch me! My kid's a citizen-- while Americans curse impotently under their breath.

As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."

The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan's crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America's most-cited federal judge -- and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop "awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States."

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was "to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves," adding that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution" if it passed a law "to put an end to the nonsense."

In a statement so sane that Posner is NEVER going to be invited on Fox News, he wrote: "We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship."

Forget the intricate jurisprudential dispute between Fox News blowhards and the most-cited federal judge. How about basic common sense? Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol! The Constitution does not say otherwise.

Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment. Fox News is using black people as a false flag to keep cheap Third World labor flowing.
Do go to the original at to see the illustrations.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Yuki Nagato of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)who, believe it or not, is herself an alien.

The Donald and Le Pen

It's not just us, you know. All of Europe is having an immigration crisis, and most countries there have developed an anti-immigration political party in reaction to it. But the United States just isn't a good place to start a third party, and the closest we can get to it is an insurgency within one of our two parties. The last successful insurgency was probably the Goldwater nomination half a century ago, and that ended badly.

Right now, surprisingly (it certainly surprises me), the insurgency is built around the personality of Donald Trump, and it seems to be our best chance to deal with the immigration problem.

Because mass immigration, you could say, is only one element of the phenomenon of globalism. And as the quibcag puts it, the two alternatives of our time are indeed globalism and nationalism. You either have one or the other. Any country that opts for the former is basically trashing its own nationhood.  And, make no mistake about it, my fellow libertarians, there is no third alternative. If you work against nationalism, you work for globalism, and vice-versa. Since globalism is just another way of saying world government, I repeat, fellow libertarians, that a revolt against the concept of nationalism is a revolt against freedom.

Paul Gottfried, over at, compares the Trump insurgency with the National Front in France:

The French National Front and Donald Trump
Quibcag: This illustration is a version of Hetalia France from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア). And I'm not sure if this is a direct quote from Marine Le Pen or not (it probably isn't), but it certainly reflects her thinking.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Trump/Sessions 2016

Of course we have to be skeptical about Trump. He could disappoint us at any point. But those of us who are aware of the immigration problem already know that all the other candidates are wrong, wrong, wrong about immigration, while Trump is saying all the right things, and he just might mean them. (I discount Bernie Sander's anti-immigration statement, because if elected, he'll soon be turned around by his own handlers. One thing about leftists is that they're quick to see which way the money-wind is blowing.) This is not to say that no other candidates have had anything good to say on the issue. They all talk about 'securing the border,' though they obviously have no intention of actually doing so. And Rand Paul has said some encouraging things on the subject as well, though he's said discouraging things, too.

But Trump has gone further than anybody, of course, in calling for an end to birthright citizenship — one of the most illogical rules I've ever heard of — and for the deportation of all illegals.

So, of course, it make no sense for anybody who understands the problem to support any Republican other than Trump.

And that's pretty much what Kevin MacDonald has concluded, too. This is from  I've added links, but go to that URL to see the illustrations along with the post.

Donald Trump’s breakthrough statement on immigration

I certainly counted myself among the skeptics when it comes to Donald Trump’s candidacy. But it’s clear now that he is going full populist on the issues that matter, first with his statements on trade deals, but now—and more importantly—on immigration. Ann Coulter calls his immigration statement “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta,” [link]

I agree—if it can actually end up influencing policy. While other candidates like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have mumbled things about legal immigration, the immigration issue will now define Trump’s candidacy. White Americans can finally express themselves on what kind of country they want to live in. As Coulter also points out, immigration is the only important issue: [link]

Suddenly the cozy consensus among elites on immigration is exposed. White American voters started this election cycle with the deadening belief that it was going to be Hillary vs. Jeb in the election, with nary a mention that immigration was even an issue. Flip a coin, because it makes no difference to the big money or anyone else—the politics of oligarchy in action. Someone sent me a cartoon (which I can’t find—please send) of a person who had hanged himself, his feet dangling down in front of a TV screen showing a presidential debate between Jeb and Hillary. Exactly. And in that debate there would be zero questions on immigration—just the way the big media wants it.

But now Trump is saying what White Americans have been actually thinking for a very long time. This passage gets at the heart of the issue.

Put American Workers First Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have destroyed our middle class. Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed. For black Americans without high school diplomas, the bottom has fallen out: more than 70% were employed in 1960, compared to less than 40% in 2000. Across the economy, the percentage of adults in the labor force has collapsed to a level not experienced in generations. As CBS news wrote in a piece entitled “America’s incredible shrinking middle class”: “If the middle-class is the economic backbone of America, then the country is developing osteoporosis.”

The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Every year, we voluntarily admit another 2 million new immigrants, guest workers, refugees, and dependents, growing our existing all-time historic record population of 42 million immigrants. We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.

The populist labor-market critique of immigration policy, pioneered by Senator Jeff Sessions and based on sound academic research, is finally getting into the political mainstream. The incredible reality is that putting American workers first is anathema to elites among both Democrats and Republicans. We talk a lot about implicit Whiteness here, and it has often been said that implicit Whiteness is not enough. But certainly the start of the revolution to restore a White America need not be explicitly White at all. The labor-market argument applies to the vast majority of Americans, Black and White alike. The idea that importing millions of uneducated, impoverished Third Worlders into the US — or any other European-derived country — would actually benefit the country is ridiculous.

It’s never been about the needs of most Americans, but rather the desires of businesses for cheap labor, the desires of the ethnic lobbies to get more of their people here to increase their power, and the desires of predominantly Jewish elites against the idea of a homogeneous White America. If there has been one constant threat of Jewish intellectual and political activity since World War II, it has been to oppose populism. Obviously, they much prefer an oligarchy of the wealthy with control of the media and in control of the donor class of both Republicans and Democrats.

And oligarchy is what they have gotten: The idea that Western societies are democracies is an illusion. In fact, an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model (see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page inPerspectives on Politics, Sept. 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“). The Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.

What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media and with enough money to run a viable campaign.

This Washington Examiner article is right on the money in showing that Trump’s statement actually fits well with the views of most Americans.

Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate’s leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump’s positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics. “Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go,'” read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on “Meet the Press.” “They have to go,” Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican senator Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Some of Trump’s presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. “Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we’ll let some of them come back,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. “I just hope we don’t go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he’s going to take all of us with him if we don’t watch it.”

Let’s watch Graham run on that and see where it gets him. All his sucking up to the Israel Lobby won’t help him in the least.

The real importance of the Examiner article is in highlighting a study showing just how out of touch elites are on immigration:

But are Trump’s views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public’s views on immigration are closer to Trump’s than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.
The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:

1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.
4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.
5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.
6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.
7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.

Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven. The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump.

Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a “small number” of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent. “Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse,” Broockman and Ahler conclude.

Shocking! We have said all along that the anti-White revolution is a top-down phenomenon initiated and maintained by hostile elites with very little popular support, especially among White people — which is why these elites continue to import millions of non-Whites. Those percentages show that an immigration platform something like Trump’s is a winner.

Trump’s immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It’s probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump’s position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump’s immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Just a couple comments on Trump’s position paper which should be read in its entirety. It may be considered the Jeff Sessions playbook on immigration, including ending birthright citizenship. The only other presidential candidate mentioned is Marco Rubio:

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. … Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

Beautiful. And he could have mentioned Rubio’s ultra-Zionist backers, Norman Braman, Larry Ellison, and Sheldon Adelson. Sounds like a pattern. Obviously, one of the big strengths of the Trump candidacy is that he is not dependent on the donor class. He gets another dig in at the donors:

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own.
Unfortunately, all European-derived countries have immigration policies that are absolutely opposed to the interests of their native populations. We can now expect that a raging conflagration of media attacks against Trump and that Republican elites will continue to do all they can to derail Trump’s candidacy. This will be political theater at its best.

Trump/Sessions for president/vice-president in 2016!
Quibcag: The illustration is Lum of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)., who is an alien herself, and illegal as far as I know. But she's of the unEarthly variety. See the little horns?
A word on quibcags. I've been asked many times why quibcags are so often illustrated by anime cuties like Lum. The answe: It's for the same reason that so many news and news commentary shows on TV are dominated by cuties, blonde and otherwise. To get you to look.  It seems to be working.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Whither the Democrats?

Since Hillary is obviously a hateful liar, totally unreliable and frankly embarrassing, there's been a lot of talk about nominating Joe Biden instead. Because he would be better. And the bar for being better is really pretty low. Joe was originally selected by Obama as his VP, one suspects, because he was the only person in the Senate who could make Obama look intelligent by comparison. And, for some reason, maybe because he's not a 100% enthusiast for illegal immigration, the Democrats don't really want to nominate Bernie Sanders. O'Malley, I have no idea, except perhaps that he's a former Mayor of Baltimore, and the Democrats don't want to think about Baltimore right now. Jim Webb actually has some good stuff on his résumé, and worked for Reagan, so that lets him out. And in case something goes wrong with Joe, there's talk of running Al Gore, of all people, for President again.

But the Democrats are having a failure of imagination. If they're going to reach into the past, with Biden or Gore, why not reach way back into the past, and nominate someone who actually won once? That's right. Jimmy Carter. He won the Presidency once, and is constitutionally eligible to serve another term! True, his health isn't perfect, but better a sick, slightly nutty old man like Carter than a sociopathic Elena Ceaușescu wannabe like Hillary.

Jimmy in 2016. He's had 36 years to mature.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

More on Open Borders

This is related to that last post [link] by Sean Gabb. Indeed, it was written by one of the commenters, and it makes perfect sense. If you've read all those comments, and you should, you'll see that the intra-libertarian conflict has to do with the NAP (nonaggression principle), sometimes called the ZAP (zero aggression principle). If the NAP is to be a requirement for libertarianism, then that reduces libertarianism to simple anarchism. Because, you can't have a government without initiating force in order to establish it and maintain it. If you don't believe me, just try it. And I'm not an anarchist, and I therefore don't consider the NAP a requirement. Now, if the NAP is a standard of behavior for people to agree on, that's another story. If you're going to have a polity where it prevails, though, you're going to have to exclude people who don't accept it as a standard. That is, you need a government of some sort to keep those people out.

For those libertarians who require the NAP, they must logically be anarchists, and libertarianism may include anarchism, but it also includes minarchists like me. I'm a libertarian nationalist, and I consider the nation (as an ethnic designation) to be a primary organization unit of humanity, and its existence is both inevitable and positive. And I want a minimalist government to preserve it.

And now this, from Alexander Baron.

This is from

Is There A Case For Shooting Illegal  Migrants?

Before anyone flies into a fit at the mere question, here is what someone wrote a few years ago:

Friday, August 14, 2015

Closed Minds Believe in Open Borders

I gave up on saving the world a long time ago. Now I just hope to help save it. To save the world, at least the world as we know it, we really have to save Western civilization. Yes, if the West collapses, the world will still be here, but it will most likely be Chinese-dominated and, I would guess, rather moribund.

But assuming that you agree with me at least that Western civilization should be preserved, it really can't last if all its constituent nations are overwhelmed, à la Camp of the Saints,[link] by Third Worlders who are peasants at best and savages at worst. The countries of the West might remain, and they might even retain their names, but they will no longer be the West, just as Anatolia is no longer Greek, and Mexico City is no longer Aztec.

And as I've said many times before, you can't have libertarianism without Western civilization. If any of you think we can, do please give some examples of libertarian glimmerings organically starting up in Uganda or New Guinea or Sri Lanka. Aside from some very stretchy notions about libertarian tendencies in Buddhism and Taoism, the world is pretty firmly anti-libertarian everywhere. Except in the West, and more particularly in the British Isles and their colonies, and most particularly in the US, which actually had a libertarian revolution a couple centuries back.

So if libertarianism is to survive, (and any "viable" philosophy has to survive, right?) The nations of the West, by and large, have to survive. And with open borders, they can't survive. And before you argue that all we have to do is get rid of the welfare system and the Third World won't want to move in any more, read what Sean Gabb has to say below, from

Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

Sean Gabb

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.
Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.
What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?
The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control.
Of course, libertarians are not blind. They are usually aware of the crime and welfare dependency, and of the demands for accommodation to the ways of the newcomers – demands increasingly backed by threats of terrorism, or by actual terrorism. They are also sometimes aware of how the arrival of the newcomers has been used as an excuse by our ruling classes to abolish freedom of speech and association, and to create a multicultural police state, and to reverse the gradual equalisation of classes that has taken place since about 1850. Many are quietly troubled by the demographic projections.
Their response, though, has been to look more at treating symptoms than at addressing the cause. They call for a smaller welfare state, to discourage the more undesirable sort of newcomers. They call for an end to the censorship and coerced association laws. Or they turn for comfort to a partial reading of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and insist that neither mass-immigration not its effects would exist in a free world.
But none of this will do. State welfare will not be abolished in the short term. Even if it were, coming here to beg in the streets would be a better option for many immigrants than staying put. It is difficult to argue for freedom of speech, when it will only provoke rioting and the sort of targeted murders we saw in Paris earlier this year. And, whatever solutions might have emerged in a free world – however the problem might not have emerged in a free world – we live in a world of overextended states. These have crowded out alternative institutions, and these institutions are a work of many decades or even centuries.
We are where we are. Either mass-immigration must be stopped with the means currently at hand, or it will not be stopped. This means passports and visas, and agencies empowered to seek out and return those who slip through the first line of immigration control. Where the refugees in Calais are concerned, it means deporting them to the last non-European country they left, and making sure that no more of them are allowed to reach the northern shores of the Mediterranean.
This is, I hasten to add, only part of the solution. Our governments must also stop turning much of the Third World into slagheaps soaked in human blood. They must stop veering between support of local tyrants and their more recent insistence on forms of government inappropriate to actual conditions. They must, so far as possible, leave other peoples to work out their own destinies in their own ways. This will, I have no doubt, reduce the outward push behind the migrants. Even so, we must secure our own borders.
Now, for many of those libertarians who accept the existence of a problem, this solution is itself a problem. An ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology. If the non-aggression principle is not to be consistently applied, is it worth applying at all?
I appreciate the difficulty. At the same time, it is a manufactured difficulty. It would not have been recognised as a difficulty by most of our intellectual ancestors. If many libertarians, when they think about mass-immigration, are now beginning to look like scared ostriches, or the more double-joined Indian fakirs, this is not because of any defect in the libertarian fundamentals. It is because, over the past few decades, libertarianism has been re-interpreted in ways that part company with reality. To be specific, the non-aggression principle has been raised from something to be desired within circumstantial constraints to an abstract and absolute imperative. If the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights, all other uses of force are illegitimate, and must be rejected out of hand by libertarians.
Let us consider how distant this imperative is from reality.
First, look at the nature of the imperative. It is not something written into the basic laws of the universe. There is a line of verbal trickery, culminating perhaps in Ayn Rand, that tries to establish individual rights with the same firmness as we recognise the nature of a circle, or are able to know the melting point of lead. But, unless you want to claim that God wants us to be free – a claim attended by difficulties still unsettled after several thousand years – your assertion of rights is no more than a request for other people to leave you alone. If your request is rejected in whatever degree, you must either put up with being less free than you would like, or choose between defensive force and escape.
Second, there is no reason to believe that most people want to be free in the sense demanded by libertarians. This is not to deny the value of freedom. When those who want to be free are enslaved, everyone else may suffer. But most people, in all times and places, have been content to be free only in the sense allowed to teenage children, or to the citizens of an authoritarian police state. They want to be free to choose what colour shoes to wear, or whether to lie in on a Sunday morning. Beyond that, they are willing to leave all the other choices to custom or the direction of those set over them. Wherever this has not been the case, freedom has generally been granted unrequested from above, or it has been demanded as one item in a package of more highly-valued goods.
Third, what most people do want is an identity beyond themselves. This may be provided by a religion. Most often, it is provided by a sense of shared nationality. People join together with those who share their blood, their language, their basic assumptions and habits of thought. They research and celebrate their history. They take consolation for their own death as individuals in the belief that their nation will continue indefinitely into the future.
As with the non-aggression principle, nationhood is not an abstract imperative. It is, however, an immensely powerful desire, shown in all times and places of which we have knowledge. People will kill for their nation. They will die for it. When committed for the sake of their nation, they will condone what would otherwise be thought the most shocking crimes. They regard their own lives and property as leasehold interests in a freehold held by the nation as a whole. However they began, and whatever else they do, states are regarded as legitimate so far as they perform their duties as agent of the national freeholder.
You may insist: “I am not part of any collective. I have no group interests. I am a sovereign individual.” In a country like England, you will not be killed for saying this, or shunned by your neighbours. But your wishes will be ignored. You will be punished if you are caught breaking the laws of your country, or if you refuse too openly to pay your taxes. Again, there is no abstract right or wrong in this. It is just what happens, and what most people want to happen.
If, on the other hand, there are enough people in a nation who share your belief – or if the authorities choose with sufficient firmness to outlaw national feeling – the natural consequence is that your nation will lose out to other nations that remain more cohesive.
This brings me to immigration. The scale of what we presently face seems likely to turn majorities into minorities. I repeat that this is neither good nor bad in the abstract. But there are plain dangers in belonging to a separate and visible nationality that lacks its own territory and machinery of state. Though often tolerated, minorities are not always tolerated. They are under permanent threat of a range of harms bounded by forced assimilation and murder.
The Israelis know this very well. Where non-Jews are concerned, they operate one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. They flatly refuse any “right of return” to the descendants of the Arabs they once expelled, and they are surrounding their country with steel fences. Israel is their Jewish State, and they will do whatever it takes to keep it so. The white Rhodesians and white South Africans have discovered the same truth. It was a truth discovered by all the peoples displaced by European settlers – why else did the Maoris and Red Indians fight such hopeless wars of resistance, once the immigrant ships began arriving in earnest? Though it cannot be forthrightly discussed, given our multicultural police state, it is a truth known well enough in Britain and every country like Britain.
What all this means for libertarians is that we have, for the past few decades, been trying to explain and influence the world with the equivalent of a non-Euclidean geometry. Not surprisingly, our movement has got nowhere. Not surprisingly, many of us are now scratching our heads and asking how, if we have been reasoning correctly from our premises, what we conclude about mass-immigration is so at variance with what we and most other people really believe.
The answer, I suggest, is to bring libertarianism back to the realities of human nature. Lack of belief in wide-open borders should cease to be regarded as at best a derogation from the orthodox view. Instead, we should accept that we are members of a nation, and that our nation is precious to us – so precious that we want it to be free. There are sound utilitarian arguments for freedom of speech and association, for due process of law, for minimal taxes and regulation, and for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Though they do not exist in the abstract, rights do exist in a nation state, where they can be seen as nodes in the permanent circuitry of power.
Whether directly or by secondary benefit, free people are happier than unfree people. This is to be welcomed. And a free nation, there can be no reasonable doubt, is richer and more powerful than less free nations, and is better able to defend its territory and its way of life.
Considered in this light, libertarianism is not a prescription for letting be done to ourselves what we did to the Maoris. It is instead part of a strategy for group survival and advancement.
None of this means asserting that we are morally or genetically better than other nations. We do not need to hate other nations, or to wish them ill. We may find it useful, now and again, to learn from them, or to encourage them to learn from us. If the most vocal opponents of mass-immigration at present are authoritarians, this is entirely an accident of fashion. There is no necessary connection between wanting our own country for ourselves and wanting a despotic government. Just as authoritarians and libertarians both wear trousers, or drink coffee, there is no reason why they should not both believe in their nation – though they might have radically different ideas of how and to what extent it should be governed.
That we belong to a nation, and that we want our nation to be free, is a better start to a conversation with non-libertarians than the usual output of the libertarian movement. It is also a better start to a conversation with ourselves.
Afterword by me:

Sean Gabb says so well what I've been clumsily trying to say in this blog for some time now: Open-borders libertarianism is a self-defeating philosophy. Here in the US we simply have way too much leftist influence in the libertarian movement, and almost all the leftist dogma has been swallowed whole by way too many libertarians. Immigration restriction has nothing to do with sentiment, and everything to do with survival. Repeating leftist (and neocon) blather about how illegal immigrants are so hard-working and virtuous is both dishonest and unhelpful. Even the "model minorities" from Asia step right up and overwhelmingly vote Democratic and help make the welfare state bigger and better in every way.

Interestingly, some very well-known libertarians have threatened me mildly with physical violence, at least rhetorically, for disagreeing with them on this point, because immigration restriction is inconsistent with libertarian principles of free movement and association. But threatening to hurt me for disagreeing with that isn't, evidently, inconsistent. Make of that what you will.
Quibcag: The little figures representing nations are from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).
Last-minute addition. Do go read all the comments on this essay at its original printing at this URL below. Some are very illuminating.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Doubling Down on the Double Standard

First off, I've always known, instinctively, that the concept of a 'double standard' for males and females was bogus. I once explained it to a young girl by saying that no woman ever worried that the baby she was raising wasn't hers (except for hilarious sitcom clichés), but men, once they understood how reproduction worked, worry about it quite a lot. Except when they're taught by feminists not to, in which case they replace a healthy fear and caution with a neurotic feeling that there's something wrong with them for having such feelings.

No, there isn't a double standard. As Hawaiian Libertarian explains below, there are simply different standards. Just like you don't have a double standard for your dog and your cat. You have different standards because you can't expect your dog to use a litter box, and you can't expect your cat to defend the house from intruders. That's because dogs aren't cats and cats aren't dogs. That's why, in order to attain a seeming equality here and there for men and women, boys and girls, the standards have to be surreptitiously altered for the two groups, so they'll seem equal. If you want fifty percent of whatever group — Navy SEALS, physicists, newscasters, firefighters — to be female, you have to give the females extra points on the test, or give them a different test entirely.

But this is about the other, basic "double standard" that feminists have been whining about for years — sex — and nobody has explained it as well as the Hawaiian Libertarian. This is from here:
and you'll note that it is itself a reprint. Go to the link to read the commentary.

There is No Sexual Double-Standard

From the SpearheadFiles
September 2, 2010

A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following: "I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango."

If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amneus’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is twodifferent standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender sex. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.

There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because a man’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.” This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.
Again, go to this link to read the comments:
Quibcag: Don't know who the cute couple are. Found them on the net.