Tuesday, December 08, 2015

On preventing Muslim immigration

If instead of calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, Trump had called for a 30% reduction, what would the reactions have been? I suspect they would've been virtually indistinguishable from the apoplectic reactions what he called for set off. The idea of restricting immigration, in any degree, from a group that has put Europe's existential crisis in stark relief and that is at least 100 times as likely to commit fatal acts of terrorism in the US as non-Muslims are is--well, was!--off the table.

Would it be deemed acceptable to call for an end to Nazi immigration into the US? If so, the putative problem lies in the specifics, not in the question itself. So why are Muslims accorded privileged status, a status they make no effort to reciprocate?

You're comparing Muslims to Nazis?! Wow, just wow! Unbelievable! At the same time it is, of course, considered perfectly legitimate to compare Trump and his supporters to Nazis.

The US is one of the most xenophilic countries in the world. In absolute terms, it takes in more immigrants than any other nation on earth. It is one of a handful of countries with birthright citizenship. It has 21 different guest worker programs in operation.

Yet taking a step in the direction of the rest of the world is considered extremist, while pushing the xenophilic extreme even further is the mark of a moderate!

In the words of Red Phillips:
There is nothing more inherently conservative, in the most basic sense of the word, than restricting immigration. There is nothing more inherently transformative than mass immigration.
But that's not who we are!

Well, it's who we were by behavior from the settling of Jamestown through the 1920s (nearly 90% of immigrants came from Europe during this long period of time), and it is who we were explicitly from the 1920s through the 1960s (when national quotas were put in place to check significant immigration from outside of Europe). Perhaps the last half century--with plateauing high school graduation and poverty rates, increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates, skyrocketing divorce rates, rising inequality, cratering fertility, etc--has been America's golden age. Or perhaps it hasn't been.

Parenthetically, I would've tweaked the message to a "total and complete shutdown" of immigration from majority-Muslim countries. It would presumably be easier to execute in practice and it would draw attention to the fact that there are close to 50 Muslim countries in the world that putative refugees could potentially go to instead of settling in Western countries, where their customs and values are wildly at odds with those of their receiving populations.

But I've been fighting futilely for over a decade to expand the width of the Overton Window a few inches and then Donald Trump comes along and over the course of a few short months transforms it from a ground-level basement window into a 98-floor skyscraper. The man's results speak for themselves.


JayMan said...


Inductivist said...

Damn, this stuff is exciting.

TangoMan said...

Is the above The inductivist who ran a fabulous blog which just stopped publishing? If so, I and others miss you. Glad that you're still alive.

outsider said...

Damn, I sort of liked Trump as a maverick, but never expected him to be in the running as one of the greatest Americans.

Audacious Epigone said...

Pen named Ron Guhname. He had a brood of his own and was beginning to get into academic research when he went AWOL. I haven't seen a trace of him in three years.

TangoMan said...

"Events are progressing as I have foreseen."

Here's the polling data on Muslim voting preferences - 70% Democrat, 11% Republican.

This simply adds to the problems for white Americans in that the Democrats are assembling a mighty ethnic coalition to effect income transfer and opportunity transfer from white Americans to minority Americans. I simply don't find it credible that Muslims are drawn to the Democrats because they secretly favor expanding transsexual rights and love Gay Pride parades.

What kind of idiot Republican leader supports importing new voters who will break for the Democrats 70:11?

We are headed towards some type of crack-up, either secessionist or a Millet system - you pay your taxes to your group and your group pays out benefits - blacks get welfare from black tax dollars, whites from whites, Muslims from Muslim, etc. and with the gutting of discrimination law, then separate spheres can coexist within one empire/nation, which then exists in name only.

Matters are only going to get worse. Whites against everyone else is not a stable system. Whites wanting protection from everyone else is also not stable.

Anonymous said...


It's not Whites against everyone else. It's straight White prole men against Coloreds, White women, gay Whites, and non-prole straight White men. Part of it is because this system benefits powerful politicians within the Democratic party. The other part of it is that straight White prole men are against everybody who isn't them. Take a look at any extremist White racist site. They hate White women, White homos, and non-prole Whites just as much as they hate Blacks.

Audacious Epigone said...


You should use a handle since you express a similar set of sentiments on a consistent basis.

What sites are you referring to? Sites like AmRen exhibit very little "hate", are certainly not hostile towards white burghers (the parasitical political class is a different matter) or women or homosexuals or even blacks. Critical in varying degrees, yes, but not hateful.

TangoMan said...

The Republican Party is hardly a bastion for straight prole white men. What's playing out is a who, whom game - take from one group and dispense to another. The majority of white married women vote Republican for they no longer benefit from having the income and opportunity taken from their husbands and sons so that single women can benefit. While white single women are still a part of the Democratic coalition, their day of reckoning is approaching for race trumps sex and white women in jobs or white women in college, at the expense of NAM men and women will also become politically intolerable for the Democrats because white women are part of the "oppressor" class due to their race.

The other part of it is that straight White prole men are against everybody who isn't them.

Why shouldn't they be? From the New York Times:

The University of Texas argued that diversity within racial groups was also important, citing “the African-American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas.” Skeptically, Justice Alito asked the university’s lawyer, “They deserve a leg up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average?”

Justice Kennedy followed up by telling the lawyer, in one of the most quoted lines of the day, “So what you’re saying is that what counts is race above all.”​

When your opponent is punching you in the face then you can't be blamed for punching back. When blacks and Hispanics argue that the kids of successful black and Hispanics physicians and lawyers should get preference over a better qualified white kid whose parents work in a restaurant, then it's not the whites who are against others, it's others who are putting racial interest above other values, like merit and fairness.

Audacious Epigone said...

Right. As the US becomes majority-minority, whites are going to increasingly become cognizant of their white identity, and act on that cognizance just as every other minority group does. Lee Kuan Yew: "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

Anonymous said...


I'm not referring to amren's content in their articles; I'm referring to the peanut gallery who comment there. same with heartiste, and sites that are much more extreme than those two (like stormfront).

I judge feminists and anti-White racists by their most extreme members, so I have to be consistent and judge MRAs and anti-Colored racists by the same metric. The vast majority of the creatures who comment on the aforementioned sites want to treat White women the same way that Saudi men treat Saudi women. They want to treat Colored people the same way that Robert Mugabe treated White people. And yes, they are definitely hostile towards White "burghers". Look at the way they talk about White men who went to graduate school. Or White men who live in elite zip codes. Or White men who eat food from Whole Foods. The hostility towards SWPL men and White women is just as intense as the hostility towards Blacks and gay Whites.

Anonymous said...


do you think obsessive spreading of division and conflict is genetic or cultural?

Max said...

"Pen named Ron Guhname. He had a brood of his own and was beginning to get into academic research when he went AWOL. I haven't seen a trace of him in three years."

He appears to have made a few new posts since you said this: http://inductivist.blogspot.com/