John Zmirak: Our Test for Immigrants Should be Nakedly Political

Zmirak is right; of course it should.

The most urgent issue facing our nation is immigration. And this should be no surprise. Demography makes nations. It also unmakes them. One of the key reasons that British, not French settlers conquered North America was simple: French women didn’t want to come to North America, while English women would. So apart from one or two cities, New France was scattered with bachelors, collecting beaver pelts and trading with the Indians. New England, Virginia and other colonial settlements instead filled up with families. Land-hungry, devout, independent-minded settlers suspicious of centralized state authority.

And the numbers of Englishmen grew, relative to the Indians, till a tipping point was reached. Whatever we think of the ethics of conquering a continent, these are the mechanics. It’s how these things happen.

Yep.

America wasn’t founded on generic Christianity. It was founded on decentralized Protestantism. Our defining political principles come from that, from suspicion of central authority. And cussed independence of government. Those principles flowed from doctrinal sources, to be sure. Mainly from a Christian love for liberty, and suspicion of fallen man. They’re not direct implications of the strictly dogmatic questions Schmitz mentions. And behold, the nations from which so many immigrants are desperate to escape? They were dominated completely by the Catholic Church for 500 years. It upheld all those dogmas, doggedly. What it didn’t produce in a single Latin American country? The kind of ordered liberty and prosperity we value as Americans.

Yep.

Nor have Latino Catholics with leftist economic views pushed the Democratic party to be more pro-life. In the past 20 years, as immigrants made an ever larger part of the Democratic base, that party has become more dogmatically pro-choice, not less. Where are up-and-coming Latino “Catholic” politicians? If they’re California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, they’re trying to put pro-life journalists like David Daleiden in prison.

Funny how that goes, eh?

In other words, if we accept more Latino immigrants, we will flip more states from red to blue. Abortion will be legal in America forever. Democratic presidents elected with those extra Latino votes will stack the Supreme Court with leftists who attack religious liberty. And gun rights. And property rights. Then the U.S. will become a lot more like Mexico or Venezeula.

I don’t want that. Conservatives (Catholic or Protestant) shouldn’t want that. So we shouldn’t put up with it. We should make the test we impose, going forward, on future immigrants neither racial, cultural nor religious. It should be nakedly political. Given how migrants of a given nationality tend to vote in the U.S. today, how do future migrants from that nation seem likely to vote? Will they vote for bigger government? For more abortion and fewer religious liberties? Then we don’t want them here. Period. We can say this plainly: Don’t import more Democrats. 

Exactly.

 

How to create a truly classless society

Have a (other than indigeneous) mono-racial, monolingual, British Isles descent, Christian population with English common law, free markets, a vigourously masculine patriarchy, common sense, order and know-how:

They had achieved @kausmickey’s ideal of class equality and @Steve_Sailer’s dream of golf 🏌️‍♀️ for the common man.

Imagine going back in time and telling these guys that 2019 Australia would have Sudanese criminal gangs. pic.twitter.com/zA0jSwtpC1

— David Pinsen (@dpinsen) October 5, 2019

(For that matter, the Scandinavians basically had this kind of society, too, despite different ancestry and legal and cultural traditions.)

The West can have these kinds of societies again.

It just has to want that badly enough to do what would be necessary to restore it.

 

Caring only about future ‘shareholders’, not current ones

Part of the idea comes from Steve Sailer discussing (in relation to mass immigration) how he was taught at business school the board of a corporation has a duty to *current* shareholders, not hypothetical new ones.

— Peter Saker (@PeterSaker2) November 11, 2019

The thought strikes: this idea of Sailer’s, which I infer from the above comment refers to wide-open immigration enthusiasts being more interested in prospective future ‘shareholders’ (i.e. immigrants) rather than current ones, i.e. old-stock real Americans (and Canadians, up here), has even wider application:

Not only is this true of progs and the woke business class, but also the neo-con Republicans who betray the white Republican base in favour of hypothetical potential black and Hispanic voters (and thus, due to going after the latter desired new voter group, going along with progs / the woke business class in wanting wider immigration, ignoring that such clashes with the interests of the former desired new voter group), ignoring their loyal white voters. (Ditto with Canada’s political class, and the pro- wide-open immigration stance of our entire political establishment, across all Canada’s main parties, alas…)

Also, one sees a parallel in evangelicalism: always with the altar calls, and invitations to come to faith in sermons, thus milk for newcomers rather than meat for old believers; always trying to be seeker-sensitive, focused too much on creating converts while ignoring the needs of the loyal regular long-term members.

I guess America’s business culture impacts politics and faith, innit? (Both down there and up here in Canada, too, naturally, given our close cultural and business ties…)

Consume products / consumers / citizens then get excited for next products / consumers / citizens!

 

The Uganda Martyrs

Just learned about the Uganda Martyrs (wiki here; infogalactic mirror in case corrupted here):

The Uganda Martyrs are a group of 23 Anglican and 22 Catholic converts to Christianity in the historical kingdom of Buganda, now part of Uganda, who were executed between 31 January 1885 and 27 January 1887.^[2][3]

They were killed on orders of Mwanga II, the Kabaka (King) of Buganda.

[…]

“the immediate cause of the killings was the refusal of the pages to engage in homosexual practices”. The king, who by tradition had the power of life and death over his subjects, was angered by this refusal to obey his wishes to have sex with him.^[3]

I’m sure that there will be similar martyrs in the post-modern, post-Christian West, one day…

 

In Poland, single women who have frozen embryos are now barred from accessing them

Based!

That summer, the laws covering fertility treatment in Poland were shifting. Informed by the Vatican’s absolute opposition to IVF, the socially conservative Law and Justice Party, known by its Polish acronym, PiS, had put forward legislation that would ban IVF and criminalize its provision. PiS held a minority in Poland’s parliament, but support for the party was growing. A revised version of the IVF bill, seen as a compromise between conservative, Church-backed parties and the governing centrist coalition, proposed to restrict fertility treatment to heterosexual couples who were married or living together. It would require clinics to get signatures from would-be mothers and fathers, who pledged to take legal and financial responsibility for any children they had as a result of the treatment, before IVF could take place.

[…]

another provision in the law, intended to insure that unused embryos wouldn’t be destroyed, mandated that they be donated to an infertile heterosexual couple if they weren’t used within twenty years.

Excellent!

Culture War Can Be Waged Back! 🙂

 

Never marry a woman of a more liberal strain within your tradition; watch out for those that do end up in your fold because of foolish brethren

(Note: this post mostly applies to Protestants, IMO, but perhaps there may be analogues within other Christian traditions, I don’t know.)

Something I’ve observed a number of brothers falling prey to: marrying a woman not from their own particular denomination, but from a more liberal one from the same tradition.

For instance, a brother from, say, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, meeting a nice fellow Lutheran girl, but one from within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, deciding to pursue a relationship with her. (Or, to use a Canadian equivalent, a brother from the Lutheran Church – Canada, pursuing a Lutheran gal from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.)

After all, she’s a fellow Lutheran, right? As long as she’s not like some tattooed slut priestess like Nadia Bolz-Weber, surely, it doesn’t matter, right?

Wrong.

It always matters.

Might as well be unequally yoked, frankly.

Because unless she converted to your more confessional, conservative, traditionalist Protestant denomination of the same tradition as her own, prior to meeting you, she’s only doing it so she can be with you.

Which means she brings all her baggage with her – all her more progressive, anti-traditionalist POV with her, into your flock.

That makes her a Trojan horse. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And she’s hardly likely to be particularly submissive and deferential, compliant towards you.

Don’t do it.

And keep on your guard against such women brought into your fold by foolish brethren.

Don’t trust them unless they appear to have had a full change of heart and mind.

Which they won’t have.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

They’ll push their husband and your denomination in a more progressive direction.

Keep your eyes on them, always. Watch for promotion of heretical ideologies, or a push for more ‘peace’ rather than conflict against heresy / societal promotion of prog ideals / policies.

 

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

The Zaparozhye Cossacks Writing a Mocking Letter to the Turkish Sultan
*oil on canvas
*358 × 203 cm
*signed b.c.: И.Репин 1880-91

 

Sultan Mehmed IV to the Zaporozhian Cossacks:

As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God Himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians – I command you, the Zaporogian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.

–Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV

The Cossacks’ reply came as a stream of invective and vulgar rhymes:

Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil’s kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are thou, that canst not slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou shalt not, thou son of a whore, make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig’s snout, mare’s arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won’t even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we’ll conclude, for we don’t know the date and don’t own a calendar; the moon’s in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day’s the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

– Koshovyi otaman Ivan Sirko, with the whole Zaporozhian Host.

*