Thursday, March 16, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
What "Undocumented" is All About The use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" vs. "illegal alien" is very revealing. Those using the former phrase believe in (or at least promote a belief in) a universal right to immigrate to the United States, so legal status is merely an issue of whether or not you have filled out the paperwork correctly, hence the term suggesting a minor regulatory violation. Those using the latter term believe that nations have the right to select to whom they wish to give entry, so legal status is much more equivalent to whether or not one has obtained consent before having sex. The debate between the two sides makes much more sense once you understand this fundamental difference in viewpoints. That is all.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
TL; DR version here. The use of the term "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens" reveals something important about the way the left (I will refer to the more restrictive side as the right and the less restrictive side as the left for this post, as that is a good first-order approximation of how the current political situation is aligned) thinks (or wants us to think it thinks) about the immigration issue. Specifically, it shows that they think of the issue of illegal migration as fundamentally being about nothing more than proper paperwork. That is why they find deportation to be such an unjust overreaction; it is the equivalent of jailing someone for forgetting to include one of the ancillary forms with their tax return. The right, on the other hand, views the issue more in terms of consent, specifically in terms of the consent of the receiving country being required for a person to immigrate there properly. In other words, we view it in the same way that most people view sex. This of course stems from the fundamental difference that in general, in the West the left believes that everyone has a right to immigrate to Western nations (how universal this is for non-Western nations is generally not discussed) and that we cannot deny entry to anyone, with only the most extreme criminals (and South African whites) as exceptions. The right, on the other hand, believes that those who make up a country have a right to prevent the immigration of people whom they believe it would not be in their best interests to allow in. Hence much of the anger of the left over the unfairness of deportations, and much of the misunderstanding about what legal vs. illegal immigrant(alien) means. When someone says that people should only come legally, they say "not everyone can come the legal way." What they ignore is that if you are not able to come legally, perhaps that means we do not want you to come. This Twitter thread nicely encapsulates the leftist way of thinking about the issue: (Text of tweets): Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutimmigrants. I'm an immigrant. I am now a US citizen. I get real pissed when other immigrants say "I came over legally, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY. It costs a lot of money. Whether you are getting a visa/green card or applying for citizenship, it costs A LOT of money. It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between living or dying. Both of which are inaccessible to lower income ppl. U can't hire an immigration lawyer if ur struggling to put food on the table Stop bitching about how u came legally and they should too - and start trying to make the process EASIER, so they don't have to! I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among white, well off, english-speaking immigrants. You're an immigrant. So are they. Carefully filled out paperwork doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other. First, note that the difference between coming here legally and coming here illegally is reduced to nothing more than having the paperwork filled out properly. Second, note that the interests of the receiving country or the desires of those already here count for absolutely nothing. That the process exists because a country wants to select which immigrants it lets in is completely ignored. To see how blatantly offensive this is, consider putting the same thinking into sex. Imagine mens' rights activists creating #daywithoutsex to protest "affirmative consent" laws: Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutsex. I am sexually active. I am now married. I get real pissed when other sexually active people say "I got consent before having sex, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY. It costs a lot of money. Whether you are having a one night stand, going out with someone on a regular basis, or considering marriage, getting her to go all the way costs A LOT of money. It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between being sexually active or remaining a virgin one's whole life [NB: the implication in the original tweet that a significant portion of illegal aliens are in mortal danger if we don't let them come here is overblown, so I am not putting some "I'll die if I don't mate" - like issue in here to make it parallel]. Both of which can be inaccessible to lower income men without attractive personalities. U can't take someone out on a date if ur struggling to put food on the table Stop bitching about how u got consent and they should too - and start trying to make women consent more easily, so they don't have to! I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among attractive, well off, feminism-friendly men. You're sexually active. So are they. Carefully obtained consent doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other. One last point: I am assuming here that the leftist side is arguing in good faith. Obviously many on the left are not. They actively hate the Western country and see immigration not so much in terms of rights but in terms of a weapon to use against the hated West. Nonetheless, the paradigm for thinking about illegal immigration that they are pushing is that everyone has a right to come here and that legal vs. illegal is merely a procedural issue that only gross pedants really think is important. And that is the basis of the term "undocumented." It is both based on the assumption of an unlimited right to immigrate and designed to promote thinking in those terms. That is why it is so important to call people out for using that terminology; it is not merely there as a euphemism to make illegal migration sound less bad, it is meant to push an entire worldview. That is all.
Monday, February 20, 2017
I generally keep ad blocking (I use Opera, and use the included blocking in preferences, not a special app) turned off, because I am willing to endure advertisements in order to support sites and pages I visit. However, I do turn on blocking at times, only temporarily and usually only for one or two pages. I turn on blocking when the ads disrupt my use of the page - i.e. if they prevent the page from loading or make it impossible to move the page (or at least make it incredibly slow). Usually, I try to watch a page without blocking ads before I watch it with ads blocked, so presumably the people are getting ad revenue from me. In any case, my general philosophy regarding advertisements is: "as long as they don't stop the page from working." Even then, I try to watch them first. That is all.
I can't help but notice that we are constantly being told that protectionism is a bad thing. It won't work, and anyway, manufacturing jobs are not coming back because of automation. Yet - how do they propose that we deal with the loss of so many jobs? Tax robots to pay for sinecures. Presumably the tax itself will slow the pace of automation because it becomes more expensive. In other words - protectionism against robots. So maybe protectionism is not so ridiculous after all? That is all.
Thursday, February 09, 2017
It occurs to me that if the media decide to take every halfway-sympathetic deportation case and publicize it, it will do a lot to publicize "you can't get away with being here illegally" to illegal aliens. In other words, if the goal is attrition through enforcement, the media are doing half the job for us! That is all.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
First of all, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of my readers. I believe that on Election Day 2016, God gave this country a reprieve. But we do not want to waste it. As a Christian, I believe that we are under judgment, and that this reprieve ought to be viewed as a chance to further spread the gospel and to work to strengthen and edify others who are already saved. If you are a Christian, find a good, Christ-centered, bible-centered church. If you already have one, see what you can do to volunteer to help the church's mission. Also work to help missionaries around the world and in this country, either through your church, or through organizations you trust (Advancing Native Missions and Association of Baptists for World Evangelism are two I use). Also, on a more secular level, we must continue to support organizations and websites like VDARE, American Renaissance, NumbersUSA, and Gab. We cannot assume that we can rest easy. Our enemies are rebuilding their forces as they did after the humiliating amnesty defeat in 2007. This time, we have to (a) keep building the grassroots that got Trump into office, and (b) go on the offensive. So that is what we need to do going into the New Year - consolidate the victories we have, stay vigilant, and look to start regaining lost ground in the war to preserve America; keep looking to God for guidance and keep working to do his will. Above all, do not assume we have finished the job by getting Trump elected. The battle is never over in this age. I could go into more detail, I'm sure, but that's enough for now. That is all.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
As the first day of Hanukkah falls on Christmas Eve at Sundown, one might ask whether Christians have any interest in knowing about Hanukkah, as Hanukkah in the U.S. is largely seen as a Jewish alternative to Christmas rather than having its own history emphasized. In point of fact, yes, there is a lot that Christians ought to know about Hanukkah. Having said that, I should point out that celebrating any holiday is optional for Christians, and Christians who are not of a Jewish background probably will not see the same significance to the holiday as Christians of a Jewish background. Nonetheless, it is important to understand a few reasons why Hanukkah has significance from a Christian point of view. First, Hanukkah commemorates the rededication of the Temple after the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiocuhs IV). In essence, it is commemorating a type of the restoration of the world after the defeat of the Antichrist. In fact, one could argue that Antiochus is the most explicit type of the Antichrist in the Bible. Secondly, Hanukkah is actually mentioned in the New Testament (the events leading up to Hanukkah are only mentioned in the Old Testament by way of prophecy - or more specifically apocalyptic prophecy - primarily Daniel, unless one counts the apocrypha). John 10:22-39 take place during the "Feast of Dedication," which is Hanukkah. The events that take place, with the people trying to stone Jesus, make much more sense if you understand that his claims to deity reminded them of Antiochus's claims to be a god incarnate. At the same time, Jesus is the true God incarnate, and Antiochus IV was just a pretender. This means that Christians ought to study in order to see the contrasts between God and false gods in behavior and attitude. That is all.