The Truth about Islamic Immigration

Although Muslims may seem to be just another ethnic voting bloc for the Left, this coalition is combustible. If Sweden is in a low-level civil war when the Muslim population is just 8%, what will it be like when the population is at 12%? Muslims will send Europe into chaos, just as they did in Israel. And, in the end, the Left’s political alliance with Islam may prove to be a fatal mistake that will end in its destruction, just as it did in Israel.

To explain this, we’ll put the current immigration crisis within its historical context to show how Leftist political machines work. We’ll start with the origins of politicized mass immigration in the 1840s, move through the 20th century’s increasing degeneracy, with Jewish and Irish involvement, then discuss the current year, and conclude with future trends.


A1. Irish Machine Politics and the AltRight of the 1840s

The most notorious Irish politician was Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall.

tweed

“Gangs of New York” portrays Boss Tweed buying off Irish immigrants for votes.

The “Know Nothings” were nativists opposed to increased immigration and big-city Irish machine politicians.

A fatal flaw in the Constitution was that it allowed newly naturalized citizens to vote, turning immigration into a ballot-stuffing technique; Just import huge numbers of an 220px-LCLevin-smallethnicity that overwhelmingly votes in one direction and you can implement a one-party state (what the Democrats did it in California). The Know Nothings saw Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall exploiting Irish immigration as a ballot-stuffing scheme and proposed delaying naturalization twenty-one years to solve the problem.

Their leader was Lewis Charles Levin (right). He was the first Jew elected to the US House of Representatives.

Captur12e


A2. Immigration respite: 1924-1965

Immigration was restricted in 1924 to mostly “White” countries to reflect the existing demographic balance. During this restricted immigration period from 1924-1964:

This “American Golden Age” ended with the election of Fabian John F. Kennedy.

A3. Fabianism was the intellectual basis for the subversion of democracy through immigration

Fabianism was developed in 19th century Britain and proposed the gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. It is a more cautious approach than revolutionary Marxist politics. The Fabians wanted stealthy subversion so that the population wouldn’t realize what was going on until it was too late. Fabianism exploits how politicians lack the courage to address long-term threats, such as Islamic immigration, as Enoch Powell describes:

William F. Buckley’s National Review was founded, in part, to fight Fabianism. John F. Kennedy may have learned British Fabianism while studying at the Fabian London School of Economics.


A4. The Kennedy’s Federalize Boston Machine Politics: 1960-

The Kennedy’s were unique in the history of US politics in their extreme dynastic long-term ambitions. From the vantage of JFK’s father in 1960, upon his son’s election, he had two more sons who could be President and over a dozen of grand-children to follow them. Joe Kennedy controlled the Democratic party, so the only trick was to create a permanent Democratic majority.

After bribing his son into the Presidency, Joe Kennedy and his sons appear to have executed an audacious plan to convert the USA into a one-party state:

  • Civil Rights to bring Blacks into the Democrat party
  • Legalize public-sector unions (creating a kickback scheme from government employees to the Democrat party)
  • Import millions of 3rd world immigrants.

This plan could have succeeded, but JFK and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated, Teddy committed manslaughter, and JFK Jr. died in a plane crash.

A5. JFK’s Assassination and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

With the assassination of JFK in 1963, the two surviving Kennedy brothers, Teddy and Robert, had a blank check to enact any legislation they wanted. They cashed it in to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 (these two laws allowed for 3rd world immigration). RFK posthumously published “Nation of Immigrants”, written by JFK, to put the legacy of his deceased brother firmly behind this effort.

The Civil Rights Movement was bait-and-switch executed on a grand scale. What Blacks weren’t told was that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the 1965 immigration act a fait accompli. The racially-restrictive immigration act of 1924 was already untenable after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on national origin. This meant that tens of millions of unskilled immigrants would knock blacks out of the job market and onto the welfare rolls.

The other two crucial Kennedy innovations, public sector unions and mass 3rd world invasion, were deviously synergistic. Unskilled immigrants, as clients of the state, whether on welfare and food stamps or jail, would need to be cared for by unionized government employees. Since government employees are unionized, and these unions kickback donations to the Democrats, there’s a perverse incentive to import the least employable and most hostile people on planet Earth.


A6. Kennedy Legacy 1968-1990

Teddy Kennedy spent the remainder of his life pushing for unlimited 3rd world immigration: enabling chain migration, expanding immigration, and helping pass the 1986 Amnesty Act. Teddy Kennedy is widely viewed as the biggest proponent of 3rd world immigration by parties as diverse as Barack Obama, Patrick Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, and NumbersUSA.

Public-sector unions benefit from degeneracy and the collapse of social order, since government social services are needed those who cannot be supported by a traditional family or community structure. Thus, incentives behind public sector unions, and thereby the Democratic party, are to destroy morality, family, and traditional religion. Accordingly, government institutions, like family courts and public schools, assumed a radical Leftist agenda.

The unrelenting machine politics of the Left sought to destroy families since married women vote Republican, while single women vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The United States has less of a gender divide than a married/single woman divide. Thus, the Left was audaciously building a new coalition of single women, imported 3rd worlders, radicalized blacks, Reformed Jews, and unionized government workers.

As degeneracy is allowed to dominate American culture and welfare incentives discourage work, the America workforce gradually grows dysfunctional. The result is that cultural decline feeds on itself. The more debauched the culture, the more its remaining institutions seek foreign labor and talent to replace Americans.



B. The 1990s: Elite’s Interest in Immigration

The Left understands that non-White immigrants vote for Democrats at an over 82% rate. Is it any wonder that virtually every Leftist party in the West has made importing non-White their highest priority? Why limit this immigration to poor non-Whites? Why not create a non-White elite for the Leftist machine?

In the 90s, minority small business lending programs intended for blacks were redirected to Hindu Indians and Muslims, who each get hundreds of thousands of dollars in sweetheart low-interest loans. Why do Indians, who are the highest-income group in the United States, still get preferential loans to out-compete white businesses?

National franchises like McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, hotel chains, etc. have a self-interest in these loan programs for franchisees and also for more immigrants as customers and employees. But, it goes beyond that. European-descended whites constitute less than 10% of the global population, and that number is steadily declining. This means that every global organization must primarily be in the business of appealing to non-European/Whites. So, the Catholic church, Corporate America, the UN… you name it…. their future is not you. Since culture is downstream of these global organizations, it means that the zeitgeist will be anti-White.

In marketing campaigns, any global organization must have a multi-racial appeal. Coke, which primarily sells it diabetes and obesity-inducing sugar water to 3rd world countries, first tapped into multi-culturalism as a marketing strategy in 1971.



C. The Left’s Addiction to Muslim Immigrants: 2010s

The EU’s worst nightmare is the rise of nationalist parties, like UKIP in the UK, but Muslims can be counted upon to vote against the national interest (at an over 90% rate). Despite near civil war conditions in Sweden and Germany, the EU continues demanding the maddening importation of Muslim voters. Far from acknowledging the fiasco where new “refugees” (mostly from Africa and not Syria) are engaging in crime sprees and remain overwhelmingly unemployable, the EU is doubling down by pressuring Poland and Hungary to take them and implementing Orwellian speech controls.

This chart shows large, continental EU member states with the longest and shortest naturalization length, in years. Islamic populations appear to be a function of short refugee naturalization periods and lavish welfare programs.

nature

It’s noteworthy that the outliers to this chart: Canada (3 year naturalization) and Ireland (5-year) are perhaps the two countries in the West making the most concerted plans to radically boost their Islamic populations. And Switzerland, which has a very high Islamic population despite a long naturalization, is being extremely aggressive in lengthening its naturalization even more. So, the exceptions prove this rule: immigration rates are related to extreme naturalization times (long or short).

An example of the Left’s obsession with Islam is the importation of Syrian “refugees”. Given the number of Syrian Al Qaeda and the difficulty in screening immigrants for radicalism, it would have made sense to import solely Christian refugees. Further, if ISIS triumphed, there would have been a horrifying genocide of Syrian Christians. Yet, the Obama administration did the exact opposite: out of 11,000 Syrian “refugees,” it accepted only 56 Christians.

So, it should be obvious that the self-righteous rhetoric about their profound concern for “saving refugees” and a “humanitarian crisis” was nonsense.  Leftists love using proxies, like a Florida shooting survivor, to present a victim up front to conceal the cynical machine politics underlying their positions.

The cold, hard reality is that Muslims typically vote Leftist at well over 90% with exceptionally high turn out rates. Syrian Christians, fed up with living under centuries of Muslim domination, would expose the ruse about “peaceful” Muslims, so they were left to die. Only through sheer luck was ISIS defeated and another Islamic genocide of Christians averted.

The point is that the Left can’t come out and say the obvious: “We want to import millions of non-Whites for ballot stuffing and as clients for our unionized social service workers.” One of their favorite tricks is to deploy Jewish organizations to talk about the Holocaust and Hitler (why would Jews want Muslim immigration when they hate Jews?). The most “Nazi” people in the world, who regularly threaten Jews with genocide, are Muslims. The Southern Poverty Law Center has over $300 million. Where did this money come from? This looks like more faux humanitarianism just running interference for Leftist machine politics.

The AltRight falls headfirst into this rhetoric and complains about a Jewish conspiracy when this is a red herring to the largest ballot-stuffing scheme in human history. The AltRight, as a populist movement, has a tendency to fall into sensationalist charlatanism. As a result, instead of sensible policies, like delaying naturalization, they had the world’s media attention in Charlottesville (a gift of 10s of millions in PR), and their soundbite was: “The Jews will not replace us.jewsEuropean Jews (red) oppose immigration much more than whites (blue). Europe’s Jews are mostly Orthodox. In the USA they voted 65% for Trump.


D. Intersectionality Politics: 2018

Since the Left no longer appeals to the white working class, they have little need for socialism. So, the Left has jettisoned its traditional ideological basis for the pro-Muslim raw tribal politics of Intersectionality.  Intersectionality distills gender and ethnic differences into an ideology purpose-built to maximize resentment of straight, white males (its boogeymen). “Assimilation” could be more precisely described as the process by which ethnic groups become comfortable with the USA’s pre-existing white/Anglo-Saxon elite. Intersectionality reverses this process by weaponizing women and minorities into perpetual victims and malcontents so that they may remain aggrieved Leftist-group constituencies.

Intersectionality lumps Jews in with “White Supremacists” as oppressors. In effect, Intersectionality bumps out Jews for Muslims in the Leftist menagerie of ethnic interest groups. Indeed, in the last year, three Jewish Democrat Senators have been cashiered by their party in California, Minnesota, and Hawaii. In Britain and California, the Jewish Left has already been thrown under the bus in favor of Islam (so much for Jewish Power?). College campuses have become hotbeds of Intersectionality, where Zionism is now demonized along with White Supremacy.


E1. Negative Assimilation

The West, which lost control over the world and descended into madness in just 100 years, is the model for the East for what not to do. “White liberal” is an insult in China. Negative assimilation is the new norm.

It’s notable that the inspiration of Al Qaeda was an exchange student to the USA who found our decadent culture repellent. German Turks, for example, are more radicalized than native Turks.

osama

The Bin Laden family was very wealthy and heavily exposed to Western culture. Are we too narcissistic to see that Muslims are radicalized by our culture? Our maddening policy of importing Muslims not only destroys our countries, but also theirs. The way to allow Islam to reform itself is to stop bringing them here.


E2. Theology of Islam and the Left

To understand the Left’s obsession with Islam, beyond the mere voting numbers or social service clients, it requires a dive into Islamic theology and that underlying the Left.

Jesus’ responses to the three temptations of Satan were the exact opposite of Mahomet’s behavior. Whereas Jesus refused to use his divine powers for his personal advantage or for power, Mahomet often used his (false) claim of direct divine authorship of the Koran for purely personal ends (such as his various murders and marriages), and, of course, to make his religious teaching into an earthly, conquering, political force. In other words, Mahomet yielded to the temptations that Jesus rejected. Therefore, Muir concludes (and he calls this a suggestion rather than a dogma), if Mahomet was indeed inspired by a supernatural being, it was not God but someone else.

Similarly, Moldbug argued that the Left was inspired by a subversive “Crypto-Calvinism”, such as the work of Rawls and the Unitarianism of Harvard University. Further, as argued previously in this blog, the underlying paradigm of the modern Left arose from Frankism, a heretical quasi-Satanic sect within Judaism. Thus, it is no coincidence that heretical elements within both Judaism and Christianity would find common cause with an anti-Christian war cult.

• Mass Islamic invasion was first suggested in Israel Zangwill’s 1909 play, The Melting Pot. This play famously pushed the narrative that the United States was capable of absorbing huge numbers of foreign cultures and masked this in feigned nationalism. In actuality, Zangwill was a proponent of quasi-Satanic Sabbateanism and subversive sexuality mocking traditional religiosity.

• Horace Kallen invented multi-culturalism, but he had a bizarre obsession with defiling traditional Judaism.

The AltRight argues that the Left has arisen through “ethno-centric” Jews. However, the Jewish intellectuals featured in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique are mostly linked to the Sabbatean-Frankism schism in Jewry and are therefore are more precisely described as sectarians rather than “strongly self-identified Jews”. Nevertheless, the AltRight’s ethnic conflict argument should not be dismissed out of hand. The two most significant anti-White leaders, the Kennedy dynasty and Tony Blair, were both Irish Catholic and hated traditional WASP culture.

Captu3re


E3.
Can the Left control their new Islamic allies?

Muslims are not a traditional Leftist ethnic group that can be bought off with handouts, or who can potentially assimilate. Migration to foreign lands is a form of Jihad. The Arab does not live by bread alone. They are more like colonists, moving to a new land to eventually conquer. They grow increasingly hostile as their numbers increase, eventually starting civil wars once they reach a critical mass. This is visible in the West, not just in Muslim-dominated areas, like Malmö, but also in prisons, which similarly have been converted into islands of Islamic tyranny within the West.

But, what if politicians dare to restrain these Jihadi communities? Groom gangs in Europe are rarely prosecuted because Leftists politicians don’t want to offend their Jihadi base. Even if the Leftist/Jihadi alliance succeeds, as it did in the Iranian Revolution, it still ended badly with the Left’s destruction. The fatal flaw with the Left’s best-laid plan is that they can’t restrain the unleashed Jihadi monster.


F. The Future, 2019+: Islam’s Unrelenting Rule of Numbers

According to “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” you can roughly quantify when a Muslim population has reached critical mass and will initiate a full-scale civil war (at around 35%). The rates of conflict should reach untenable levels long before that level is reached.

fabian

The Fabians, however, calculated that the White population wouldn’t realize the danger until it was too late and the Leftist / Brown political alliance would have already been locked into a perpetual political majority (like in California). The Left only succeeded in California because the Hispanic population was relatively docile in the 90s (no MS-13). So, while machine Leftists around the world may have been riveted by California’s successful example of destroying democracy and imposing a one-party state through immigration, they don’t understand that this example isn’t necessarily scalable and may not work with Muslims.

They fail to see how this strategy failed spectacularly in Israel. 10% is too small to be politically decisive, yet large enough to help cause shocking right-wing political revolutions, like Brexit, and reverberations like Trump in the USA.

Thus, the Left is mistaken. This strategy may backfire horrendously upon them, as it did in Israel. They are attempting to use free-speech controls to silence opposition, but the mathematics are inexorable. Muslims will grow even more sadistically brazen and repellent far before they before their numbers create a Leftist hegemony as in California. They will continue to be radicalized beyond anyone’s control merely by exposure to our culture. Since Islam is riven with Jihadi blood lust, no one can stop them: Not their Imams who have preached Jihad for decades and certainly not the panic-struck Leftist politicians who invited them in.

The question is how to exploit this error, end the crisis, and defeat the radical Left, once-and-for-all, as the Israelis did. (coming soon)

Here’s a good head start:

 
Advertisements

13 thoughts on “The Truth about Islamic Immigration”

  1. Excellent article. (Does anyone else see of the final third or so after the end?)

    It seems to me (a very uneducated observer) that Islam in many countries has become less… I’m not sure what the best word is. Functional? Civilizational? over the past few decades. The Iranian Revolution is an obvious example. Pakistan once had a female head of state; today it is looking more like Afghanistan. Of course this need not be a universal trend, but am I seeing something real? And if so, what is causing it?

    Like

    1. Yes, the Saudi’s are now pro-Israel. There is *some* hope because it overshot the mark with ISIS. Oddly, we want Muslims in Europe to be as radicalized as possible to build up a political counter-reaction.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. We are a powerful people and with that power comes great responsibility. That we abide the Janus faces of Progressivism and Neoconservatism to represent our tribe on the world stage is an indictment of our ability to police our own.

    Like

  3. Jews in America voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Only 25% voted for Trump.
    Jews in the media are almost all left-wing and push for egalitarianism, universalism, globalization(political centralization), mass migration from the 3rd world, feminism, socialism.

    Like

    1. In the USA, Reformed Jews were subsumed into the Democrat party, In Europe, Jews oppose immigration. Yet, there is undeniably a Jewish element in immigration. Further, post-Holocaust there was obviously a drive not to block refugees and for Civil Rights. However, the underlying dynamic isn’t “Jewish Interest”, per se. This is more obvious in 2018, when Jews are being discarded from the Left and immigration is being pushed harder than ever. The underlying dynamic appears to be machine politics

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Jews in America voted for Clinton to a slightly lesser degree than Europeans, Australians, and Canadians supported Clinton. To put it another way, Jews in America are essentially the same as White people around the world, whereas American Whites are an extreme outlier. This is because Jews are not assimilated into ‘mainstream’ American culture (i.e. Amerikaner or ‘bad white’ culture), or, more accurately, they are well assimilated into elite American culture, which, as a result of the conquest of the world in WW2 by the American elite, is global white culture.

      When you factor in Jews in Israel, you find that Jews are much, much, much more supportive of White interests and rights than Whites are. See here: http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/ Israeli Jews are actually more supportive of Trump’s wall than Hungarians who are also a huge right-wing outlier (see page 3).

      Like

  4. Excellent article. Well researched and very clear.

    One question though.

    What, in your view, is the root cause explanation?

    You seem to suggest that it is power alone (stuffing ballot boxes) but then you also suggest it is ideology (weird cults). Can you say more?

    Within Moldbug’s work, for instance, there is a tension between ideological (crypto-Calvinism) and structural (Imperium in Imperio and H&MvL).

    Thanks.

    Like

  5. Interesting arguments. I had to skim over most of it, but maybe you can make this into a vlog or podcast or debate it on YT. The crushing response to leftism seems to be populism, which is what is happening in Europe and what Trumpism also is.

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s