To make matters worse, subversive organizations, such as the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS), receive federal tax dollars to go get migrants in their home countries, bring them to the US, and “resettle” them here. HIAS and similar organization have brought in countless invaders, and we have paid to introduce them into our communities.626 A majority of course are on welfare, costing $64,000 house and feed for their first few years in the US. This is not only unsustainable, it is entirely unconscionable. Between the Hart-Celler Immigration Act and non-government organizations, the Left is insuring that America will eventually reach a billion inhabitants, most of which will be non-white. It will up to us to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965, and to let HIAS know how little we appreciate their efforts to replace us, and the abuse of our tax dollars these efforts have entailed.
These so called “migrant crises” are all Liberal fiction, propaganda narratives, and they will never end. The African and Arab population is growing without limit, with no signs of slowing down, and every indication of exploding in the coming decades. There will always be hordes of foreigners pressing on our borders, just as there always have been. There should be no Western plan to handle this “crisis,” either, other than steady men armed to the teeth standing our borders. It is not our problem if certain groups spend more time reproducing than they do working or farming to feed their families. Expecting the West to feed and house the world is criminally unfair. The welfare state is being expanded globally before our eyes while many politicians throughout Europe and America tell us there is nothing we can do, that it is inevitable, and we must foot the bill.
Really? Nothing we can do? If you gave me a few good men, some trucks, and a few rifles, I could stop the invaders from storming our gates tonight. It wouldn’t take much. I guarantee it.
Foreign aid needs to be ended, and the borders closed. Taking in endless numbers of needy or greedy migrants is suicidal while we are trying ourselves to recover. Migration should be completely abolished until every single American that wants to work has a job, and until the national debt is zero. Our current system shamelessly puts Americans last, behind every single person that makes it to our shores and across our borders. There is no moral justification for this. We must first secure the well-being of Americans before even considering what foreign governments or peoples might need.
Birthright citizenship needs to be ended. It is an absurd concept to begin with — this wild notion that a Mexican kid born in Texas after his nine-month pregnant mom jumped the border, is every bit as much an American, and deserves the same vote and the same rights, as somebody whose family fought in the Revolution. 300,000 or more anchor babies are born in the US each year, accounting for around 10 percent of all births. They are able to receive government services and vote when they come of age. They have no connection to us and will only vote for those who promise open borders and amnesty. Their allegiance will always lie with their own people, not ours. This is perhaps the one thing we could stand to learn from them.
All welfare to migrants must be ended, and all illegals deported. Migrants presently on welfare must be given a choice: get off welfare and get a job, or have their citizenship stripped and deported. Those who live with illegals should be held accountable for aiding and abetting them, and either jailed or deported right along side them. After all, we wouldn’t want to separate families.
Many of those who have been granted citizenship have made it abundantly clear that they hate us. Repatriation programs and incentives should be awarded to all those willing to go back to their rightful homelands. Due to the net drain on the tax payers represented by their presence here, every single person, man, woman, and child, that has come to the US post-1965 should be offered a one-time payout to renounce their citizenship, leave, and never come back. We will save money in the long run, and they will finally be able to live among their own, as they so evidently desire.
Dual citizens should not be eligible to hold any sort of public office, or to vote in our elections. They have somewhere else they can always go if our nation becomes uninhabitable to them for whatever reason. They will therefore vote for their personal interests, which very often will not correspond to those of our own citizens, for they have no necessary stake in this nation or loyalty to our people.
The wall needs to be built, and needs to be visible from outer space; that must be the measure of our resolve. All amnesty must be ended. The idea of thinking we can continue to have a fundamentally American nation with the population demographics of Mexico and South America is a fantasy not based in reality. California amnesty did not secure Republican votes, it simply turned California into a state that Republicans will never win again. Once we are a minority and can no longer win elections, the nation will turn into another hell hole like Mexico or any given South American nation. The misguided hope that somehow, someday, foreigners will become American is an absurdity that sooner or later will cost us our country. Even after several generations, most non-whites still vote Left. They always will. They are not going to somehow decide that low taxation, smaller government, free speech, and less welfare, is in their best interest. Not when over half of them are benefiting from those government services.
The civic nationalist types that place misguided hope in the idea that the majority of non-whites will somehow be won over to the Right are living in a fantasy world. They are soft globalists without even realizing it. The same is true of those who support so called “legal” immigration; they are still doing nothing but supporting open-border mass migration and population replacement. The only difference is that their plan will delay the demise of the West by a mere decade or two. In an effort to be inoffensive and inclusive, they are risking everything they hold dear. Their sky castles will come crashing down on their heads, sooner even than they could imagine.
Civic nationalists promote the image of America as a melting pot in which non-whites somehow simultaneously retain their ethnic identities and act in a way befitting this country and its history. They have the bizarre idea that the Founding Fathers mutually pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to each other to create a “homeland for all.” They therefore explicitly reject the Founding Fathers view of what it means to be an American, as well as nearly 175 years of law that limited immigration to white Europeans.
Here is the end result of their civic nationalism: white families paying a third of their income in taxes, so we can feed, house, clothe, and “educate” a family of seven Somalis, which will have twice the voting power as the white family that is funding them. Civic nationalism is the ideology that Africans flying into JFK airport, picked up by their HIAS representative, and driven to their newly furnished apartment, are just as American as the descendants of a family that came here on a fifty-day boat ride from England with a few pence in their pockets.
One of the most foundational tasks of all governments everywhere for as long as governments have existed has been to secure and maintain borders. The once great Western Roman Empire, spanning continents and centuries, fell, not because of a superior rival, nor through total war, as so many others have: Rome fell as a result of the barbarians she herself let pass through her gates.
There is an absurdity creeping around this topic. A sort of dramatic irony lurking in the shadows, an irony I was never able to put into words. Never, that is, until I happened to stumble upon a documentary about strife in Africa, which showed me something incredible — African warlords, with sixty year-old AK-47s, that are able to secure informal territorial borders, while the most well-funded military in human history cannot stop low-skilled Mexicans from invading the USA. Anyone who believes that this is anything other than a deliberate policy decision is deluding himself.
The US government as well as the governments of Europe are choosing not to enforce our borders. They are choosing to use our tax dollars to help fund the invasion. This raises several questions: What does our military actually defend, other than the government’s ability t
o mendaciously and malevolently replace the founding stock of the nation? What do our “leaders” really care for us, for the citizens, and what can we do about it? And how would a foreign occupation look any different than what we are presently experiencing? Men swarming a country, securing territory, installing their own people as government officials, murdering and raping the native population, and looting coffers — every aspect of our present “immigration policy” mirrors invasion by a hostile army, rather than a rational policy choice made by people with the concerns of their citizens in mind.
The reason African warlords with sixty year-old AK-47s are able to maintain territorial borders is quite simple: will. They are not afraid to use those rifles. The cost of protecting our borders, whatever it may be, is less than the cost of being subjected to millions of crimes, being subjected to rape, murder, drug epidemics, and supporting a de facto invasion via welfare. Perhaps our government and the majority of our fellow citizens do not see this war for what this really is. But we should begin to act according to the reality of our situation.
Many have remarked that my view is hyperbolic or extreme. I disagree. You cannot save your nation from destruction by thrusting your head under the sand while your nation is overrun by adversaries, whom your leaders happily usher in.
Due to unnatural and hostile demographic shifts, mass-deportations should be the norm to expel the invaders. When we are facing down our demographic demise, in our own homelands, nothing should be off the table. If loading them up in cattle cars by gun-point is necessary, so be it. If using force against invaders as they run across the border is what it will take to send a message that this land is not up for grabs, fine.
The hordes of migrants and their children, along with the vast majority of non-white US citizens, do not care at all about liberty or the foundations of our nation. They come here as welfare tourists. They are mere paper citizens. They come for benefits and handouts acting from an entirely selfish paradigm, without fail. They do nothing but drag us down. We do not need them, we never have. They are nothing but the albatross around our necks, who keep us from what truly matters — achieving Imperium.
In the 2016 president election, we only won because of the white vote. Without that, our country would have been lost. Over 70 percent of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, and Muslims voted for Clinton.627 They voted, that is to say, for fundamentally un-American policies. They voted for gun control, hate speech laws, open borders, mass migration, amnesty, more taxation, and a bigger government. They all voted directly against our interests. Against our values. Against the Western tradition.
Since 1965, fifty-nine million migrants have come to the US (not counting the children they have once here), dragging the white population from nearly 90 percent to nearly 60 percent in only half a century. There will be a projected 441 million residents of the US in 2065, up from the 324 million currently. Of those 117 million new “Americans,” 103 million will be due to non-white mass migration. Sometime around 2040, whites will drop below 50 percent of the population, ensuring that the election of somebody running a campaign based on our interests, will never happen again.628
White America is the last vanguard against the Liberal cataclysm looming large on the horizon. The last bastion standing in the way of the mongrel hordes upon us. Without us, there will be nothing left but an apocalyptic future in which the darkness of the Third World covers the Earth.
We have an intrinsic right to maintain our own homelands and our own culture, without either of these precious heirlooms being altered by foreign invaders.
All international organizations are inherently dangerous to our individual liberties and the sovereignty of our nations. NATO, the United Nations, the European Union, Paris Climate Accords — all of them are totalitarian tools to facilitate globalism. Together, they siphon billions of tax dollars from us, giving us nothing in return but misery, debt, and the loss of our rights. The highest power in the land shall be granted to the people, not some unelected cabal of men running the planet from the shadows. The US must depart from all such organizations, and seek their abolishment.
All domestic organizations engaging in sedition need dismantled. The Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center both work with law enforcement and politicians. This is a radical miscarriage of justice and a case of textbook subversion. Both groups are supremacist in nature, and they are far from partisan; they mislead, lie, and create far more hatred than they have ever stopped. Both organizations seek to forward their agenda, influence public policy, attack their enemies, all while collecting tens of millions of dollars in the process. Both organizations collect mountains of data on US citizens; the ADL has been found illegally spying on American citizens, and both have harassed people personally for their political views. They both seek the firing, blacklisting, and defamation of people they disagree with.629 The ADL and SPLC are well-funded political terrorist organizations. Nothing more. Not a single person working for either of these organizations is American. Not one.
The ADL and SPLC spend more time ghost-hunting “white supremacists” than they do focusing on the groups that are actually damaging property, rioting, attacking, and murdering people. Groups like this have no place in our society.
When we speak of returning to our roots and reviving the American and European spirit, it may sound grandiose. People seem to think we are merely selling a dream, something out in the void with no real meaning. But we can look back on our history we can find specific moments that marked striking deviations from the path that we needed to be on.
Even if you never questioned the specifics of how we might find our way home, you always knew something was wrong. You could feel it in your bones. Something about this “new” America bothered you, something was never quite right. “Like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.” That splinter is the persistent feeling that we’ve been sold out, that we are being replaced; it is the feeling of a paradise lost.
America was great first and foremost because of the tremendous freedoms we enjoyed. And although we still have greater freedoms in relative terms than most other nations of the world, we are a long way from home. Ending the income tax, property taxes, the National Firearms Act, the National Security Agency, and the Immigration Act of 1965 would be a great start.
Gun rights should be restored to the point that, unless you’re prohibited from buying a firearm, you should be able to legally carry and travel with a firearm. There should be no government-required permission-slip to exercise your fundamental rights. Peaceable journey laws should be the rule, not the exception.
I’ve often been mocked by Liberals with the sneering question, “When was America ever great?” They would often throw in something along the lines of, “What, do you want to go back to when you could own slaves and beat your wife?”
No. I’m not interested in owning anybody, nor beating anybody either. I just want my country back, the way it was meant to be. Before the government spied on us, before a third of our income was stripped away annually, before we were reduced to serfs on our own land, before we were forced to fund the arrival of migrants that will never assimilate, and have neither the capacity nor the intention to carry on our culture.
I would like to see politicians act more like Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson in their strong attitude towards large banks, corporations, and foreigners. Mine is more of an economic third position, with the aim of benefiting the people in a nation, rather than corporate and foreign interests. I would like to see openly nationalist, isolationist, and protectionist policies from our leaders. If companies want to use foreign sweatshop labor to make fatter profits or bring in foreign workers on H-1B visas, they should be forced to show cause or face high tariffs. Our economy is not a true “free market” anyway; we have a mixed economy, and that mix of governmental involvement should always lean towards protection, not fatter profits. After all, the fundamental purpose of a government, the reason governments have ever been formed, is
to protect its citizens.
Big tech corporations that silence people under terms and conditions should be regulated by federal legislation, as should companies engaging in communication services. You cannot be denied access to electricity or phone service due to ideology; you should not be censored online either. The US government should indeed step in to ensure we are able to speak freely when a hostile clique is actively stifling our thoughts. When a handful of private companies can control who has a voice and who does not, we no longer have freedom of speech in practice, only in theory.630
There is a cyber-oligarchy in place, consisting of social media platforms, search engines, web hosting services, and internet service providers; these together can control practically the entire realm of information access for the majority of internet users. If they choose to de-platform a person or ideology, it can be done within hours — as we have seen. A small clique of technocrats are able to entirely dismantle freedom of speech in practice, and only allow what they deem to be approved speech to be seen and heard. Social media and the internet form the new public forum; they should be treated as such.
Those who argue these companies have the “right” to censor whomever they wish are arguing in very bad faith. Private companies are subjected to thousands of federal regulations as is. There is moreover a tremendous legal precedent for actions as invasive as eminent domain and regulatory takings, all justified as “public use.” Light-touch legislation to guarantee digital equal access based on political ideology is arguably less extreme than the legal favoritism of current protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, and far less restrictive than what people are told they can and cannot do with their own private homes and property under the Fair Housing Act. There is also already a body of case law that supports the notion that public forums, although owned privately, should be compelled to allow lawful speech on their premises.631
Liberalism Unmasked Page 37