It’s Not Going to Stop
It’s more insult than flattery to learn that our besotted lecher of a VP reads this blog. As I have noted previously, there is nothing final about any great chivalrous amnesty for the dreamers. There will be no grand compromise that grants leave to some quadrillion squatters here now in exchange for a putative reduction in the quintillion to come later. The answer to every question about mass migration to the west is always the same: MORE.

And Joe Biden, always too dumbdrunk to properly lie, lets the gaffe out of the bag yet again.

“I’m proud of the American record on culture and economic integration of not only our Muslim communities but African communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities,” Biden said. “And the wave still continues. It’s not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things I think we can be most proud of.”

This is, of course, the little secret about “border security” that democrats no longer bother mouthing: Secure the border and make everyone legal. Waves and waves of legal immigrants stomping on a certain race…forever. And the hair club Vice President couldn’t cackle louder.

“Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent — for the first time in 2017 we’ll be an absolute minority in the United States of America,” Biden said. “Absolutely minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America, from then and on, will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”

Doesn’t sound much like Netanyahu talking about jews in Israel at all. Is it possible the prime minister doesn’t even know a strength when he smells its breath? No matter. The point is that even during rare moments of sobriety, Joe isn’t much of a logician. Because if our dispossession is a strength, then there’s a clear path toward growing stronger still. And by following it we will eventually become as mighty as the Etruscans are today. And for Biden and Bibi…that’s not a bad thing.


I Purely and Simply Reject the Question
What if you were presented with the following social hypothesis: Joe’s opinion of Bob is formed entirely exclusive of Bob. It is, rather, a function of Joe’s character and environment. So if Joe thinks poorly of Bob, it is strictly a result of moral infirmity on the part of Joe. And he should be pilloried as a hater and bigot.

But what if Bob is a racist?

In that case, Joe should kill him.

I trust this was sufficiently illustrative to clarify the position. Though to put it perhaps more succinctly, some groups are not at all responsible for the antipathy they generate, while others earn their ill will honestly. Now you understand. Here’s an example.

On Tuesday, a journalist for Sveriges Radio (SR) asked ambassador Isaac Bachman on air: “Are Jews themselves responsible for the progression of anti-Semitism?”

The ambassador appeared shocked by the suggestion, and replied: “I purely and simply reject the question.”

When the journalist asked “Why?”, Bachman said: “There was no reason to ask this question.”

The station removed the programme from its online archive and issued a full apology.

“We offer our fullest apologies for this question. It was misleading and put blame on individuals and on a vilified group,” SR’s senior management said in a statement on its website.

As you can see, the hypothesis is quite field tested. Jewish behavior is not a factor in negative opinions about jews. None. I reject the question, issue a full apology, and will remove it from these archives.

You all understand that such supine spectacles have nothing whatsoever to do with actually embracing such humiliatingly ludicrous propositions. One can be firmly opposed to allowing criticism of jews, while still acknowledging an obvious source of that criticism. Instead these are simply coded challenges. The actual question is: do you oppose or submit to jewish power? But since that’s a bit too gauche for teevee, we get this senseless clucking about Jews having nothing to do with opinions about jews. That is unless they are positive, and then miraculously the opinion’s subject emerges as its source.

And while all of this is transparent, it remains something amazing to behold. By comparison, whites are hardly so well shielded from the notion that they have actually aggrieved other parties. Oddly jews themselves seem at the forefront of harboring such ostensibly well-earned spite. And where is the shocked Swedish ambassador then?

I believe the myriad of indictments against whites are comically spurious in large part. Yet to imagine asserting that even the concept of white malfeasance should be out of bounds is a position too ambitious to consider. And yet there it is.

What, we did something to make you not like us?


GOP donors praise Jeb Bush for stance on immigration
And how! Because if there’s ever been a family one could praise for immigration, it’s the Bush. If I had a tail, it would be wagging in anticipation. Let’s read what these rock-solid conservative republicans are so enamored by.

Jeb Bush was held up by top Republican donors today as one of the party’s best voices to champion immigration reform in the coming presidential election.

“We have to have someone who is willing to take on this issue,” he said. “We have to nominate a candidate who is willing to let action be stronger than inaction. Because as Republicans, we’ve let inaction be our model for too long.” [For too long this country wasn’t invaded for profit!]

He said the booming Hispanic population in the U.S. is a “game changer” and that it would be unwise for Republicans not to embrace the community. “We need to welcome these individuals. These individuals are risk takers. They did not come here for anything else other than improving their lives and we need them in order to improve our economy.”

I’ve always been amazed at how much traction that ‘improving their lives’ canard has managed to maintain. If I steal my neighbor’s car, I’ve improved my life. Take the rest of his property and my life is incrementally more improved. No doubt the Khan’s lives were also improved by their plunder.

But, ummm, sorry to ask Jeb, but what about improving our lives?

Well you’re in luck, my friend. That’s what The Economy is for!

You mean I’ll get a higher paying job?


You mean I’ll pay less in taxes?


You mean my expenses will go down?


Then what does The Economy do to warrant selling out my children’s inheritance?

It makes GOP donors very very rich. And that is its own reward.

GOP donors and leaders such as Grover Norquist, who was also on the call, have long called for immigration reform.


Just One Small Detail
I’m sure most of you are well advised of the recent Texas court ruling that Obama’s immigration law by fiat was impermissible. This halting the entire Central American Frankenstein just before it shambled across the border. Here’s one article.

President Barack Obama’s administration faces a difficult and possibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul, since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law, lawyers said.

In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on. Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.

The failure to do so, Hanen wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.

The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.

This Hanen is a cagey operator. I’ve watched Obama’s evolution of executive fiat with an almost macabre curiosity as to how or whether it would be bounded. What legislative or judicial domain would our little man of Big Man rule claim next? If he could simply re-write immigration law by whimsy, the only restraint on his exercise of raw power that I could see was his own native indolence. So it’s a gratifying surprise to finally watch someone step into the breach.

But as democrats accrue power via voting proxies, there will be fewer Andrew Hanens and many more Sotosomethings. And that is the whole point.

Though for now, it is simply to smile.  Obama stampedes across constitutional lanes without a care. His power-worshipping party in a phalanx. He re-imagines the law as opponents watch helplessly. Finally one little guy in Texas fells him from the bench. For not providing adequate public notice! My God this country.

So if Obama ever orders a seaside decapitation of the republicans who serve as his ersatz opposition, it won’t be the actual actions beyond his prescribed scope of authority that are called into question, but whether he provided a 90 day public comment period beforehand. If you’re not laughing, you’re not living.

So how about a cheer for sclerotic government. Long live the bureaucracy!


14 thoughts on “Potpourri

  1. So whites basically need their own version of Isis if they want to turn things around.

    But whites are incapable of such will to power (they are afriad of being called names).

    So what then?

  2. Jeb forgot to mention the “path”. A soft, gentle word. Something easy and inviting to tired, sore feet.

    I fantasize that I could be a crank, outlier Senator, with a billion-hit youtube archive of soundbites like
    “…we have to nominate someone that will enable, annually, the equivalent of a new metropolis of squat mestizos to bushwack to a better way of life; to machete their way to the United States of Freedom.” I’d do it drunk.

    But who even knows, anoymore, with his own senses and experience, what bushwacking with a machete is like? I do, which is why the word “path” irritates me so.

  3. we have to nominate someone that will enable, annually, the equivalent of a new metropolis of squat mestizos

    People don’t comprehend scale at all. Million/billion/trillion are little differentiated concepts to most, while obviously meaning radically different things. So too with immigration numbers as you note. We legally let in a new Dallas every year.


    This, of course, being insufficient to the Bushs and their donors who want a new Texas annually. We are advised this would be ‘good for The Economy.’ A phrase I wish every human being would learn to instinctively translate into: I’m going to get even richer.

    • The Sierra Club might have weighed-in on the impact of an added metropolis every year, but they got some Economy in the form of a mountain of SwindleBucks from David Gelbaum. Full archive at VDare.

  4. Re: Just One Small Detail:

    The pushback against executive actions is simply more Hegelian Dialectic from this government. If youre not familiar with the term get used to it. And I say “this government” rather than “this administration”, with purpose.

    AS IF any individual outside the behemoth of bureaucracy could ever dare to take dear leader to task on any issue. Remember, the GOP and media are complicit if not abetting the administration. TPTB understand the American people care more about their sovereignty than helping our tan neighbors to the south. So they put on this little dog and pony show of back-and-forth, push-and-pull we see with every military action, every tax expansion, every statist proposition that manifests itself (as if).

    AS IF these are spontaneous, uncontrived debates and events taking place. Why do we see Fox News even covering the same issues (albeit from a slightly contrasting perspective) as MSNBC? They are on the same team. You couldn’t simply say “AMNESTY FOR ALL!!” when you know REAL citizen opposition exists. Therefore, in the Hegelian/Leninist spirit you must own and control this opposition. By doing so, you can eventually decide when the opposition has worn down (and as an added bonus, the sheep will buy it!) and then simply implement your initial intent. Modern American Politics 101, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it.” – Lenin

    Two theories at work. In regard to the initiation of the “debate”:

    Problem (Event) > Reaction (Politician Outrage) > Solution (Erosion of Individual Rights through new law)

    In regards to the settlement of the “debate” (the Hegelian aspect):

    Thesis (Amnesty for ALL!) + Antithesis (NO to the proposed) = Synthesis (Make most of the concessions to the thesis (amnesty) side, and blow the media dog whistle so NYTimes can tell us this amnesty action didnt go far enough)

    This creates a spiral, as we are seeing and as Hegel himself noted, towards one end. But which end to we appear to be spiraling towards in this country? Hint: it ain’t good.

    For more examples, see in the near future: Debate over mandatory vaccines, ground war versus ISIS, “school shootings” prompting gun control/mental health overall

  5. You almost have to feel sorry for Biden. The guy is such a loser that even being VP can’t erase the stink of failure surrounding him. Love him or hate him, Obama is an ambitious guy who knows how to connect with people. He’s like a less overtly slimy Clinton. Biden, on the other hand, is Clinton with all of the sliminess and none of the charm.

    Re: Biden’s comment about demographics, I know that white liberals view themselves as the elite of society who, like Charles Manson, are convinced that they’re destined to rule over the colored hordes from afar. In other words, even though guys like Biden know – even if they’d never admit it, gaffe-prone or not – that life *on average* will suck in the future, they think that they’re special – average is for loser white proles who can’t afford to live in gated/moated communities. What a rude awakening Biden’s descendants are in for.

    When asked if people would still be reading his books 100 years from now (circa 1960), Celine quipped: “What interest do the Chinese have in French literature?” I can’t help but wonder if those same Chinese anthropologists will marvel over how the most inclusive race the world has ever seen worried itself to death fretting over its lack of inclusiveness. Perhaps Chinese schoolchildren will be instructed on the perils of inclusiveness to outsiders – that once the floodgates open they never stop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s