Search the Community

Just like the Antropogenic Global Warming topic, a similar OP for the not less "hot" topics immigration, (forced) multiculturalism and related subjects. Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies) Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest) Topic highlighted in blue contains scientific studies Forum topics on Immigration et al. The European "Migrant" Crisis - 02-09-2015 - 51 replies White People - 09-07-2015 - 42 r The Truth About Immigration and Welfare - 20-10-2015 - 35 r My Problem with Immigrants - Tolerating Intolerance - 01-10-2015 - 19 r The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy - Bill Whittle & Stefan Molyneux - 09-12-2015 - 17 r Female Worker Stabbed to Death in Swedish Refugee Center - 26-01-2016 - 15 r What Pisses Me Off About the European Migrant Crisis - 02-09-2015 - 14 r How Multiculturalism Enriches Europe - 29-08-2015 - 14 r Temporary Foreign Workers - 22-04-2014 - 14 r White Genocide Theory in a Nutshell - 29-11-2015 - 9 r Operational Sex Ratio & Islamic Rape Jihad - 29-01-2016 - 8 r The Great Freedoms That Come From Immigrants Outside the Freedom Club - 20-08-2014 - 8 r Immigration & Native Americans - 18-11-2015 - 7 r Donald Trump's Immigration Plan - An Honest Conversation - 18-08-2015 - 7 r Donald Trump: Stop Muslim Immigration - True News - 08-12-2015 - 6 r The Truth About Illegal Immigrants - Was Donald Trump Right? - 17-10-2015 - 6 r What Outcome Will Multiculturalism Have? - 06-10-2015 - 6 r The Truth About Immigration - What They Won't Tell You! - 20-07-2014 - 6 r Shareable Anti-Immigration Video? - 03-01-2016 - 5 r Border Controls & Anarcholibertarian Ethics - 28-12-2015 - 5 r Mises & Immigration - 13-01-2015 - 3 r Trying to Understand the Refugee Migrant Situation - 20-11-2015 - 2 r The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship - 24-08-2015 - 2 r Obama's Executive Order - Immigration, Amnesty & Contradictions - 22-11-2014 - 2 r The Immigration Crisis - Propaganda Decoded - 29-07-2014 - 2 r The High Cost of Middle-Eastern Refugees - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 14-12-2015 - 0 r 62 % of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare - 02-11-2015 - 0 r IQ and Immigration - Jason Richwine & Stefan Molyneux - 05-10-2015 - 0 r FDR podcasts on Immigration Is the European Migrant Crisis Leading to War? - Paul Joseph & Stefan Molyneux - 04-02-2016 - 1:01:44 The High Cost of Middle-Eastern Refugees - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 14-12-2015 - 46:47 The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy - Bill Whittle & Stefan Molyneux - 09-12-2015 - 1:15:47 Donald Trump: Stop Muslim Immigration - True News - 08-12-2015 - 28:39 62 % of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 02-11-2015 - 1:03:47 The Truth About Immigration & Welfare - 20-10-2015 - 35:19 The Truth About Illegal Immigrants - Was Donald Trump Right? - 17-10-2015 - 54:36 IQ & Immigration - Jason Richwine & Stefan Molyneux - 05-10-2015 - 1:02:07 Death By Multiculturalism - Call-in Show - 09-09-2015 - 3:30:26 Donald Trump's Immigration Plan - An Honest Conversation - 18-08-2015 - 1:53:36 An Honest Conversation About Donald Trump - 05-08-2015 - 1:32:28 Obama's Executive Order - Immigration, Amnesty & Contradictions - 22-11-2014 - 20:35 The Immigration Crisis Propaganda Decoded - with Monica Perez - 29-07-2014 - 36:10 The Truth About Immigration - What They Won't Tell You! - 21-07-2014 - 1:45:35 Unions, Immigration & Foreign Trade - 19-11-2012 - 1:04:11 Call-in Show - Why Doesn't the Free Market Work in Immigration? - 05-06-2011 - 1:55:15 The Immigration Roundtable - Stephan Kinsella, Wilt Alston & Stefan Molyneux - 09-05-2010 - 1:57:12 Immigration - Part 2 - 25-01-2007 - 31:03 Immigration & Empathy - 24-01-2007 - 38:25 Immigration, History & Genocide - 02-05-2006 - 42:04 Immigration Part 2 - The Predatory Escalation of Immigration Policies - 04-04-2006 - 9:58 Immigration Part 1 - 04-04-2006 - 34:10 FDR videos on Immigration & YouTube Playlist ===================================== External video Interesting & Effectively Simple Video on the Uselessness of Immigration into the Western World - Roy Beck

Placeholder until I can find the article again (stupid browser isn't ) Would like to know if it has been posted before (or if this is the wrong area to post such things) My apologies if this is a bit sensitive to some readers here.. You unfortunate have live the with many of these marxists and anti anti-White forces directly. OYu elites invite them , and they act to stir up your The parents emigrated from (a shithole if there ever was one... made from stolen land at that)... the dictator in power there is an old guard Communist figure who is also sympathetic to Islamist causes [and perhaps financial backing].. [for info, look up the Amoudi terror arrest (by the FBI) in 2005].. so these ideas she espouses may run in her family, additionin the party line in her native country for decades (apple not falling far from tree) {eDIT: Foudn mor einof for the mbmers here (hope you are enjoying todays show as welll.....can't currently get it to load on my set up, so wil lhave to listne whenever it posts) "Al-Amoudi https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.discoverthenetworks.org%2FindividualProfile.asp%3Findid%3D1311&udata=256af8e6f84fccf3eeb7e42371800428 https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA36718-2004Oct15.html&udata=4d97cc73bc4951daf4317e4ce90eea54 I will try and find more links and more bio info when I have free time... Maybe should drop this spoiled brat in Russia (or maybe Ukraine ) or any country where the descendants of thos ewho had to suffer for her beloved "idea" may dispose of her properly..

Before 1970, "hispanic" wasn't even considered a race in USA. But after 1970, everyone that comes from Latin America is automatically considered 'hispanic/latino". Even a Luftwaffe Iron Cross ace like Egon Albrecht ( http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Egon_Albrecht ) will be considered "latino" in USA, since he was Born in Curitiba(Brazil). I an not a national socialism sympathizer, only showing him as an example. Here is an American asking "How come people from Uruguay are white and good-looking?" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100613130250AAU61UQ This photo from Argentina bellow In fact, if Queen Máxima of Netherlands go to USA using "Argentine papers", he will be considered "hispanic", but if he goes using Dutch papers, now he will be "white". Same for a Asians. Alberto Fujimori will only be considered Asian in USA if he manages to get Japanese citizenship(and that is very hard, even for Japanese descendants). Latin America is not a "homogeneous" place as the majority of Americans think. "But the majority is mixed race", yes, is truth, but they have more native american DNA than DNA from Hispania peninsula, if USA become a mostly mixed race country, consider "anglo" as a race will make no sense too. The statistics that Steffan uses in his video makes no distinction between a Haitian and a German Descendant that comes from Patagonia. And if you divide the statistics, by country, Argentinians and Uruguayans, for example is not over represented in welfare and poverty. An example? The race relations in South America isn't easy as a "homogeneous mostly mixed race group" too. In Brasil you have affirmative action to protect the majority from the minority. And racism is a serious crime. A Soccer team was kicked out of a competition because a minority between the club fans shouted "Monkey"("Macaco") ( https://sports.yahoo.com/news/soccer-gremio-kicked-brazil-cup-over-racist-fans-003257889--sow.html ) And one girl had his house burned with molotov cocktail and lost his job. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My question is. Why not divide the "hispanic" statistics by country and by race?

Hi all, I am looking for links to the actual research that Stef eludes to regarding immigration. I am aware of his data driven presentations on it, but he does not provide all the links to back all those charts that he made. I believe him, I just wish he would cite his sources better. Screenshots of graphs from his presentation are worthless in debates.

I will see if I can find a link to a News article from some where. California has decided to Openly Violate the Constitution of the Republic and fuck up the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer that making raids againsnt illegals and members of organized Crime there, the protest movement agaisnt enforcemnt of nations Laws (and of Naturla Law) has beceom so grea tthat at the State Level has coem to decision tha they will no longe rcollabroat w and will sek to use the pwoers vested in them A very one -directional and Objectively pathological 'altruism'...... They are only interested in preserving their "right" top be here without papers...They are mentally deficient in that they see tha beleive tha plasure that invaders have in being able to ensure their share of benefits that they did not produce is a n indicator that they have doen a virtuoius dead... But pleasure is not the measure of . It is for short-brained people like who believe that is measured by how much "good" .. Since when is bodernline libtard-egalitarian a sn obejctive standard for Actual good? Then answer: It is not a measuere !pleasure is . They cannot percieve it because their way of thinking came about .... the basic deifneition of a neurological disorder.... Their altruism can is in actuallity a form of Hedonism, subtle enough for them to never be able to realize it because of their primitive and base of thiniking Bring Roman Catholic (fucking voodoo post 1965 Catholicism) religious arguements into the debate about religiion is the most evil and singenious part of b . Of the diaspora, with no , being very Shite Catholics (on the level of vooboo savages praying to cards and statues like their Indio ancestr"os did while living whorish. and otherwise adharmic lives... religion has unfortunatle been a cruthc that allows all sort of thigns without consiously knowing) . I t is not merely a politcal defect but a patholgy iwhtin the human species, where emapthy is used to distort. Geyt away tiwth sabotaging the ICE raids that are disrupt for the sake of these people....they can protest civilily... That "governments are evulz" .. It is ALWAYS worse to have liberals in charge of them becaue they will agiasnt natural Law and of.. they are the counter-tradition's in politics. Ther is no inhernt morals in lbierals,.... The 19060s or 70s... A could be a liberla for saying that have the right to have sexual intercourse in fornt of children and the radicals would be arms ... No kmoral only hedonism doesn, beut becaue of how have ebeen allowed .... Restricting "freedoms" is necessary in rodr to have any order otherwsie ..... Humans are NOT good and is an TRULY Ordered Liberty according to the Principles of Natural Law. That part of reason ( I think?...aprt from some currents isnpired by casuisty or by m-influenced individuals that weaseled their way, and who inject their ideas into Libertarianism by way of casuistry) arose in the first place... Later generations forced to pay for the lives of domestic enemies (criminals and those genetically inclined to criminality) and tow in order preserve their in spit eof that It is *this* tha tmakes governments and the legalsim of them a danger to those Souled Beings among us, becau eht eare not coming from Fully Brained beings, but from Egoists and Hominids who dictate law according to their whims... *this* is the fundemntal flaw of Government ... it is based not on natural law, but on Legalized Whim..of politcal science, which has not been fixed because lack the Perception to do so... all they can do is replciate what they have been ahnded down and .. they lack a cociouness their Trash pedo(or rather to not insult any True Catholics here, Psuedo-Catholic) .. Liberals, beleiveing in freedom, are actually way more left on the , they don't beleive . they jsut beleive, (and erroneously so) that freedom for it's own sake is ..... much like liberals do.... Is not the only thign in the mworld..... Ther ealso cirmianls form other.. their actions win impedieng ICEs ... The tiem that agents have to trying to get liberals to leave them alone is also time that orgnaized criminals and potential terrorists have to hide.... Thus, in addtion impeding the preversion State authority to liberlasim puts milliosn of people's lives in danger t for NonCatholic countries that willb e free to their activites if Europe will probably revolt against it much more quickly and force-fully than the united States, and then . Soem form of politcal eurabianism may exist,s becasue of the need for and the eArch-Atlanticst goal of kicking Russia out of the middle East.. They will probably also prefere a modfied eurabian format becaue of theri annoyance at the influence ykws and a conciousness among arabs that (hmhmm..... hmmm..... mmumph.....) for some shared activity... free flow of energy resources, that won't be put at risk because of ( hmm,.....mmmh.. mumph) I gues my question for the whether it is possible for Liberty-minded people to legally Stop Local governments and the liberals runnign them form following through with their ILLEGAL and Uncocnsittuaitonl actions before the damage and thwart actions against criminal in the name of Radicla Catholic and Secular Egaltiarians, .. I think improtant pre-requisite is to start pblcially callign them out for Blatalty unconstituional Actions... however, the omnly way to stop them form doing anyhtign that Agian MSU Tbe trhoguh legal action them out is probably a Whehter any kind of legal action (Civil Suits ) can be taken agianst and cities in order to stop them from gettign away thwarting Presidne't agaisnt Ilelgals and organized cirrminals for the sake of of Extremist Open borders catholci Egalitiarianism? abotu legal systems, and how to awaken peopel to the that laws mean literally nothing, and that a higher State of Awarenss is necessary to act agisnt thos who can act in Adharmic ways Freely becau they Realize (like Law is an imaignary... The is to make REalize that thtis fact as well, if one doesn't, than they will be at the mercy of those who don't care about such thigns and be exposed to harm , not jsust by liberals, but by those shitsouls and evildoers that are enabled by them, and by Uncheck forces of this at -larg .. That yu have realized this for htanky to the work of others.... Is to eveutnally let them suffer of being stupid and harmed by the of liberals STATES RIGHTS/Pricniple of Subsidiarity WILL NEVER WORK PROPERLY AS AS LONG LIBTARD ARE ALIVE TO USE THE PRICNIPLE ACCORDING TO THEIR WHIMs Last Consituitonal defense against the potential abuse coming from a Tyrannical Executive has been fianlly perverted and misued by Lbierals in order full sped ahead with their agenda of opening country to crimianls Proved Root of probelm is with Liberals having access to the state apparatus at all. Agaisnt freedom is compounded with actign in idioplgoically saddening The erosion of morals is not solely the responsibiltiy of liberals but ther very ideology prevents form fixing msitakes.. Will come to be known : "Power corrupts, but Liberalism in Power corrupts absolutely" (Maybe this shoudl be memefied... it would help awakened.. it woudl also be healthier than those based on The mistake they have made in Outwardly ilelgal accoding to consitition. This is the "point" wheer, iw swhere they must be caught the F*** out and legally before they are to casuemroe harm or give cimiansl and mroe time to .... Meet honest halfway....... Liberal Politicans do not have to be part of the IRL P2P outreach at all... If it isdoen coectly ther no problem to Good people who seekt o Lawfully becoem, but have jeopardize such chance their reckless illegal presence here In the end though, Law (Natural Law) has to prevail,... must be mewith protest by Liberty-minded Citizens of this contry and by solid legal action aagainst state government officials that act like these have... It htink wil eveutnally resolve much more forcefully, but thir great actors TO a point wherne usche Will try to when I can get some tiem off.... other wise ... please share thoughts (or make your own thread about it, may be more legible than this one at any rate... and won't slow your computer donwn to bloody paint like it has mine) Thank you.

I had to read it several times and I still can't grasp it fully. Sigh. So the time has come to start 'abandoning the sinking ship'? We don't deserve it anymore it seems. Here's the article about the European Union's escalating push for a Dublin reform Why did we allow our EMPs to vote with 390 yes, 175 no votes and 44 abstentions? I'm awestruck and starting to notice my thoughts regularly wondering towards seeking out a new place where people have integrity and actually 'walk the walk' the opposite direction. How can we be so removed so that now 'there's actual plans being drawn up to sell our houses from above our heads'? Well, I guess the security and public sector gonna boom for a short while at first from all that 'wellcoming and smooth-integration'. I haven't seen many outlets bringing this issue up. 'Is it a duck?' I hope someone corrects me. Barnsley

The European, especially the German politicians, leaders and media aren't stupid - they are corrupt and undemocratic. Muslim immigration into Europe via Germany is not an accident or a mistake - it's a well-devised plan, for thirty years now negotiated with the MENA states, but never discussed with the EU citizens. Laid down in papers of the UN and EU, it is slowly coming into fruition. 30-60 million people, this number is taken from "slipped" information, are to resettle in the north to make up for lost children and a demographic vacuum in Europe, thereby relieving demographic pressures in the MENA states. "Our land, our money, our civilisation, for their people, their oil, their power" - that's it, more or less, in a nutshell. It's basically an imperialistic expansion, and probably includes aiming to introduce the Euro as an energy-backed currency in those states as well. And Gaddafi (of Libya) and Assad (of Syria) probably just refused to step aside in time. - Everything else is a sham. You need proof? ---- For starters, have a look at this from article from 2007: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2018 Eurocrat Empire Building From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-03-28 07:47 On Sunday, the European Union celebrated its 50th anniversary. The EU was established on March 25, 1957, when its six founding states (Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg) signed the Treaty of Rome. They solemnly declared that they would aim for "an ever closer union." As a first step towards the goal of political unification the six states decided to integrate their economies. They have meanwhile been joined by 21 other European countries. ... Empires, however, are carnivorous monsters. They have to keep growing in order to avoid unraveling. Hence, they inevitably grow ever more totalitarian and expansionist. The EU is interfering more and more in the daily lives of its subjects. At the same time, its territory continues to expand, from the original six members to the present 27. By definition, there is no end to this process. The Leviathan has to be fed. ... Five years ago, Louis Michel, then the Belgian minister of foreign affairs and at present a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that eventually the EU will encompass the entire Mediterranean basin, including North Africa and the Middle East. ---------------- End of this Brussels Journal article So I did a bit of research, and I am still reeling under the magnitude of treason and conspiracy of this snake pit I have accidentally stumbled across. This looks like the greatest sellout in European History. My take on it is: Unite and Conquer: My country for your Power. Yes, there are snakes (and ladders) everywhere. Some hidden, some out in the open. But this is the poisonous one - and NOBODY will touch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnW30dYSC3k So, buying people for money - what was that called again? Ah, yes. We will end human trafficking, say the biggest human traffickers of all time. Thirty to sixty million! Not even the transatlantic slave trade had that volume! What they mean is: We will throw those who mooch in on our business into jail. And I'd say anyone that goes for your throat, for calling out these people, is in on the deal, with or without their knowledge. For years and decades now, the people of Europe -who were never asked, by the way- are wondering how it is, that their elected politicians are prone to act so blatantly stupid against their constituents' interests; it drives them to public desperation, that the people they elect, once in office, all seem to suddenly become inept at doing their job. But what if this 'sudden onset stupidity' is not ineptitude at all, but on the contrary the introduction to a clandestine deal, forged with foreign powers, over two decades ago? Which would also be about the time in history one can pinpoint, as the one when European politicians suddenly became so unbelievably stupid. These European politicians keep lullabying and distracting their population with faux debates, on how much border control and security is needed, vs. granting asylum to those poor refugees, when they, for over two decades now and behind their constituents' backs, have been cutting deals with the south Mediterranean Arab states outside that southern border: Our land for their people, our women for their men, our civilization for their power, one huge political superstate encompassing the Mediterranean Sea, one currency for all. Wealth and power to the elite of all those involved, none for the downtrodden, take it away from them. They keep telling us it is about "humanitarianism", and "fugitives" fleeing terrible states of affairs in their home countries ever since the "Arab Spring" in 2010, culminating in a "refugee crisis" in 2015. Well, have a look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Union_for_the_Mediterranean_-_updatable.svg Or these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec So from 1995 onwards the EU met up with the leaders of the Mediterranean Arab states to talk about an ever closer political, economic and cultural relationship, and no discrimination, all religions, all languages, all cultures are equal, everywhere, no need for anyone to integrate themselves anywhere? Treating Morocco and Israel and whoever to the Eurovision Song Contest and other small things, talking about rigging up the European solar power supply (Desertec) in their countries "as soon as they are politically stable", then bombing their governments to shreds with the help of their allies - the uncooperative and uppity ones, I suspect, that wanted to keep their on power structure and currency, like Libya and perhaps Syria - and then throwing open their own northern countries' internal and later their external borders, this illegally, to the surplus peoples of the now- defunct south Mediterranean states? Thus relieving them of criminals, madmen, revolutionaries and other demographic pressure, by the way. What was out minister of the exterior doing in Egypt during the Arab Spring? Negotiating what? What's with Europe's financial connection to Palestine? Who will get the Euro next: Egypt or Morocco? My tip is Morocco. And then what's left of Syria? Or will it go to Jordan? Coated as "refugee relief"? It could be Palestine as well... Oh, look (one of the two seems to be more accurate than the other): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DOLLAR_AND_EURO_IN_THE_WORLD.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Verwendung_des_Euro_und_daran_gekoppelter_Währungen_weltweit.svg Could it be that this whole "Islam & Muslim Refugee Integration" business is one unbelievably huge hoax? It isn't the Arabs taking over Europe, it's the other way round, a joint venture at top level, without asking anyone's consent or approval? A hostile or friendly takeover, whichever way? Are they trying to erect a new quasi- Roman Empire, and to hell with the original population, what we need is slaves, and let' em cut each other's throats? We do not need those who will not bow to us? Is this all a gigantic Euro Ponzi Scheme as well? We get the wealth, the new billion-dollar philharmonics concert hall, and the gated palaces, with our new friends the Arab rulers, you get the debt, the nights of terror and the boot camps? They have the oil and solar power, we have the factories, and you have nothing? We want to treat you like they treat theirs? We will trade in your ancient civilization for their even more ancient rule over abject subjects? Well, look up the "Barcelona Declaration" from 1995 and the "Union for the Mediterranean (UFM)" and your eyes will be opened. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:r15001 It can even be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean A summary: http://balder.org/avisartikler/Barcelona-Declaration-Euro-Mediterranean-English.php https://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/barcelona_declaration.pdf And, of course, look for "replacement migration" papers from 2001 at the UN. Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/replacement-cover.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/Germany.pdf Even the bombing of the Arab Spring and the following "regime changes" makes so much more sense in that context - not that they didn't mess it up a bit, but, hey, who cares for collateral damage, if nobody knows? And as for Soros and the funding of the NGOs - who says the NGOs aren't secretly government led and funded? The latter they are, in a variety of ways. Perhaps led as well. Who else but a European Government in collusion with those around the Mediterranean could have thrown so many government wrenches into the way of a boat called C-Star in so many different countries in and around the Mediterranean - in Egypt, Malta, Cyprus, Sicily, and Tunisia? Only half of them formally belong to the EU. So is there a third party aboard in this, besides international crime and Soros? The as yet informal UFM perhaps? After all, these are GOVERNMENT representatives and agencies: "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said. Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural. He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law." (Well, guess why not; see above), in: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 The then vice president of the EU-Kommission, Frans Timmermans, is quoted with: "Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity's destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future. That's where humanity is heading. And those politicians trying to sell to their electorates a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture, are trying to portray a future based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be. Europe will be diverse, like all other parts of the world will be diverse. The only question is, how do we deal with that diversity? And my answer to that is, by ensuring that our values determine how we deal with diversity and not giving up our values to refuse diversity. That will bring us down as a society. If we don't get this right, I truly believe Europe will not remain the Europe we built. Europe will not remain a place of peace and freedom, for very long." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SO2irtSTeg --- So, all in all, I submit to you: - Europe, geographically, was sold, by it's own government assembly, some 25 years ago, to foreign governments, for citizens of these other countries, faiths and cultures. The Barcelona Declaration of 1995 is an expression of this. - The reason given internally is the aging and shrinking of the European population; this can be described as a form of human trafficking, if not slavery, on one side, and fraud, larceny and thievery on the other; if force is threatened (which is and will be), it is robbery. And, by the way, it takes away their every agency: no matter what the Europeans decide to do, or how they want to be, it shall be thwarted, should the need arise. - The newcomers were informally, there, if clandestinely, here, promised full citizenship without integration. The citizens of Europe were promised the opposite. - The migrants of 2015 were literally told (and we never found out by whom, but they said so in early interviews), that they not only could MAKE Germany their home (that's where the most money is to be had), but that Germany (or Europe, 99% of them wouldn't know the difference) WAS their new home, along with a car, a house, a wife, and all the had to utter was the magic word "Asylum", the concept of which they do not understand ; they take it as "iftah ya simsim" or "Open, Sesame" for the riches of Europe. Which ist true, but fraudulent. - The member states' bureaucracy then processes the migrants formally as asylum seekers, and rightly so deny it to over 90% of them. The migrants do not understand it, the locals do not understand it - because it is indeed a huge European government fraud. The migrants then turn to a life of crime, to pay back the huge bribes they owe their families and the Mafia, usually thousands of dollars. - This discrepancy between government words and government action was never discussed in Europe in public; the Europeans were never asked, and now they are told the game is up anyway. But they are still lied to as why. The clandestine government treaties are still not being discussed. - And now these traders in human lives pretend to the world that it is about "refugees" and "integration" - a contradiction in itself, and a) pretend to be taken by surprise by the situation, and to be too stupid and inept to handle it and b) blame their constituents for being mean, selfish and inhumane. - And that the Europeans' incomes and lifetimes savings were de facto and clandestinely confiscated in 1995 and forfeited by the European government, to pay for surplus people from elsewhere to come into and live in and live off in Europe, is still being denied. - All of this did happen after the fall of communism in eastern Europe, but I suppose it was already being prepared for in the west, because of the known demographics, so that the citizens of eastern part of Europe (and Germany, in fact) are even more taken aback at what they are told is to be. - Or, even more sinister, Eastern Europe was reigned in as the EU's expansion to the east, the Mediterranean was to be it's expansion to the south. That just turned out to be more difficult; there were more and different people to deal with. This kind of policy used to be called "Volk ohne Raum", it's just a different room and folks this time. The timeline of the early deals would fit this picture. - This is especially visible in Germany, as more rules had to be changed there; for instance, the citizenship by descent (a child of German citizens is a German citizen) had to be, and was, changed to citizenship by birth (a child born in Germany is a German citizen) to facilitate the thousand of anchor babies now being born in Germany, making them all European citizens. - There is even talk of issuing an up-to-now- unavailable "European citizenship" to, and only to, migrants in Limbo, who have legally and rightfully been denied their fraudulent asylum, but cannot be sent back, thus making them special citizens in a way. The European government is still defrauding it's own citizenry, lying in public, and giving fraudulent instructions to their administration. And they know it (but the people don't; the migrants don't, and the citizens don't). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean-Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html And so they go on lying to their own people, to push this 25 year old deal through against their electorates' will and knowledge; for after robbing and disenfranchising them, they will have a new people, which they will have bought with their electorates' own money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Lösung Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? ---- Addendum: *the uncooperative ... ones, ... like Libya and perhaps Syria: Found it - in German: https://www.bmz.de/de/ministerium/wege/ez_eu/eu-wege/mittelmeeranrainer/index.html Google translation: "To create a zone of peace, democracy, stability, cooperation and prosperity is the aim of the Euromediterranean partnership. It was launched in 1995 at a Foreign Ministers' Conference in Barcelona and is therefore also called the Barcelona Process. The partnership has since formed the basis for relations between the countries of Europe and the Mediterranean region. In order to further improve the basis for this cooperation and strengthen the partnership of cooperation, the participating States have decided to expand the Barcelona process. On July 13, 2008 the new partnership "Union for the Mediterranean" (UfM) was founded in Paris. ... The Union for the Mediterranean region comprises 43 governments representing more than 700 million people. In addition to the 28 EU Member States, all Mediterranean countries (except Libya) and Jordan and Mauritania belong to the UfM. (Syria's participation has been suspended since 2011). ... The Union's focus on the Mediterranean is based on a partnership in the context of specific projects. New to the Barcelona process are, above all, the establishment of a co-presidency (North / South) and a permanent secretariat for the selection, preparation and implementation of the projects. The UfM Secretariat started its work in 2010 and is headquartered in Barcelona. ... The Union for the Mediterranean complement the existing relations the EU has with its Mediterranean partner countries. In addition to the European Neighborhood Policy of the EU, it is a platform for dialogue and regional projects. Existing Association Agreements, Action Plans and EU action will continue. The UfM plays an important role for regional cooperation, as it also covers Israel and Turkey as a regional forum. Since 2007, relations with partner countries in the Mediterranean region have been financed by the European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI) as part of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). More information about the European Neighborhood Policy can be found here (link)." https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmz.de%2Fde%2Fministerium%2Fwege%2Fez_eu%2Feu-wege%2Fmittelmeeranrainer%2Findex.html&edit-text= And somewhat differently, in English: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/regions/euro-mediterranean-partnership/ The Middle East and North Africa: Called the MENA states; here are the official German objectives in that region: "Building bridges between Europe and the Arab world States in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have been important development cooperation partners for Germany for many years, due to their global political significance and geographical proximity to Europe. Germany is cooperating with a total of eleven countries in the region. Its average annual commitments for development cooperation of 400 million Euros make Germany the second-largest donor there after the USA. The MENA region stretches south of the Mediterranean Sea from Morocco to Egypt, and east of the Mediterranean from Yemen to the Gulf states and on to Syria and Iraq. The high rate of population growth is a major challenge for countries in the region, many of which suffer from resource scarcity and rising unemployment. German development cooperation in the region is a contribution to the long-term peace policy of the German government. The priority areas of cooperation are geared to the region's core problems and most significant development potentials: water, energy, sustainable economic development and education." http://www.bmz.de/en/countries_regions/naher_osten_mittelmeer/index.html Concerning MENA: The big one they leave out, of course, is Saudi Arabia, THE oil-producing power in the Middle East, which recycles it's petrodollars to German armaments, amongst other things. I wouldn't be surprised if the British decision to Brexit from the EU and side with the US had a lot to do with what will happen if the EU tries to buy Saudi Oil with Euros (the British not having adopted the Euro anyway). If you really want to delve into the bureaucracy and papers involved in the highly official "Muslim / Arab - European Dialog", go to: (In German, around pages 99-105) https://books.google.de/books?id=LvLWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=nord+süd+kommission+dialog+"barcelona"&source=bl&ots=2xuhvSarHY&sig=LX2s1B_NCmVfbywmWF3szNC8GDA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6o_Oms_WAhXEIVAKHeOfAC4Q6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=nord süd kommission dialog "barcelona"&f=false And for recent goings-on, straight to http://ufmsecretariat.org/ But for the 2008 paper on the European Parliament resolution on the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, ending in the words: "19. Stresses the need for projects under the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean to be open to all EU states and Mediterranean partners interested in taking part, especially if they are stakeholders in specific projects or fields; 20. Considers that a fourth chapter of cooperation – on Migration, Social Integration, Justice and Security – should be included and added to the three chapters in the Barcelona Declaration, which provides for Political Dialogue, Economic Cooperation and Free Trade, and Human, Social and Cultural Dialogue, which are the backbone of Euro-Mediterranean relations; 21. Notes the role of migrants in the development of their home countries and of the EU; calls at the same time for stepped-up cooperation between EU and third countries in order to fully implement the EU plan on legal migration; considers that the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean should take this dimension into account in order to create an area of freedom and security; 22. Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament and the EMPA on a regular basis about how these regional projects are developing and to consider the proposals and evaluations submitted at parliamentary level with a view to raising the profile of the process and increasing take-up capacity and added value for citizens in the region; 23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the EU Member States and the governments and parliaments of the partner countries." http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2008-0291+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN That's where it was hidden, smuggled in and pasted into the bottom of the resolution, after more than ten years of negotiating "Dialogue" and "Free Trade". Where does a wise man hide some words? In a paper. It is always done that way. Read them VERY CAREFULLY. Note the one word that does not turn up is: "Refugees" We are being had. The EU and MENA government-created Union for the Mediterranean, with seat in Barcelona, under its current Secretary General Fathallah Sijilmassi, is -in its own words- "bringing together 43 countries to promote cooperation in the Euro-Mediterranean region" on every subject from schooling to business, energy and sports, migration, job opportunities and multiculturalism; for details, see, with 30.000+ followers, https://twitter.com/hashtag/ufm?lang=de https://twitter.com/UfMSecretariat?lang=de or go to http://ufmsecretariat.org/workshop-migration-mediterranean/ - and yet our European national governments, here the German one, tell us nothing of this, nothing of the 25 years of negotiating and nothing of the 10 years of conferring on a daily basis with the countries of emigration; they act surprised when the prepared happens; they talk of uncontrollable refugees, instead of migration by treaty; say they don't know and can't tell where they came from; they have no idea where their "refugees" got the idea that they would be furnished with a house, a car, steady money and a wife, a new identity and never mind their past, or who gave them the picture of benevolent Frau Merkel welcoming them in; that they therefore cannot be sent back; they uttered the magic word; that we must adapt to help them integrate into our society; and so on. And then, oh, they just conjure up this inexplicable magic number of max 200,000 entries per annum, and give no idea as to why that number exactly, either. It could turn out to be higher, though, as none will be turned back at the newly none- existent borders anyway. Remarkably, too, all of this is happening under the supervision, command and control of NATO. And without any press coverage whatsoever. Shouldn't they be celebrating this exemplary international and intercultural cooperation in human tr... whatever? Every other international cooperation gets publicly lauded, so why not this one? There will be a reason, won't there? Oh, the Hypocrisy of it all. The only truth in it is that there is no alternative for them to act on, as international treaties and requirements have to be fulfilled. Do they? They were never discussed or ratified in national Parliament; and even if, they could be revoked. Now, if you calculate the 200,000 migrants, into Germany alone, that the UN stipulates as a yearly minimum from the year 2005 onwards, then the 1.5 million that came into Europe in 2015 were but a fraction of the total; there should have been a million more, just for Germany, by now, so - bring in their families! Ve must fulfil ze treaties! What would happen if all of this became widely known? --- One more update: It did not come from nothing. Some say the whole deal ultimately dates back even to the first oil crisis of 1973, when the growth-dependent European leaders, receiving just 5% less of crude oil and that at a much higher price, found themselves in utter life dependency on the Arab world, and basically offered Europe to the Arabian people (who had always coveted it) in return for their bitterly-needed oil: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401 Traitors, one and all, for selling out their people; so I would say. From the German source - I cannot verify this; but guess who turns up, right at the very beginning of this history? That's right, "The Colonel", Muammar al-Gaddafi the Colourful - who seems, in hindsight, to have been the most honest of the lot, if not to say naive; Europeans and Arabians the like, you name it: "Pompidous campaigning for a Euro-Arab dialogue in the then EEC states was apparently successful, as in 1973, the French Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel de Lipkowski, initiated talks on a Euro-Arab dialogue with the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In November, French President Georges Pompidou and West German Chancellor Willy Brandt met to consolidate the project of engaging in dialogue with the Arabs. Due to Pompidous efforts, a European summit was launched in December 14.-15. in Copenhagen, setting in motion the Euro-Arab dialogue." Some 40 years later, in 2011, the movement of the Arabian and other immigrants was set in motion with the attack upon and execution on the battlefield of the same Colonel Gaddafi, at that time still the Libyan leader - and one of the very few high- ranking witnesses of the complete procedure still alive, and who therefore could have talked; that would potentially have compromised the deal, and he did give out a few dark warnings to enhance his position, cut some extra and be allowed to stay in power. For whatever reason it was, he was done away with. Now, as far as I can tell from a hint here and there, the handing over was to be realized and the European borders to be opened by 2010, so things were already behind schedule. Then in 2015, things were finally set in motion, the millions of immigrants from then on being sold to the European natives as "war refugees" and their entry being wangled over phony claims to asylum, the over 90% rejection of which does not matter either way, as everybody is allowed to stay anyway and bring the family in notwithstanding. As it looks like from the outside, the deal was also to keep everything under covers (typically, the papers on these matters are publicized ten years after they are signed; so there should be more as yet unknown and unpublicized papers on this matter in the pipeline right now), and wait with the physical takeover until every one of the deal brokers on the European side was dead; it would take some decades to negotiate the handing over of a whole continent anyway, and if things became known, resistance was to be expected. I does look like, well, the perpetrators counted of reaping the benefits while not themselves paying the price; the oil was calculated to be running out by that time anyway. And it did work out that way, for them. "We'll hand over the keys to our cities for the firewood we need to keep ourselves warm, not to you, for the people would notice; and they would resist; but these will be bequeathed unto your children, while ours won't exactly know what happened, when it hits them." ---

I was speaking with a friend when the topic of integration came up. He is ethnically German and told me about how his ancestors came over here in the mid 1800s. They were content to live in enclaves of German culture in and around the Pennsylvania region until about ww1/ww2 when the anti german sentiment prompted them to learn English in a hurry. Here's an article about a Wisconsin town if you're interested in the topic. There are more than a few parallels with the modern hispanic subculture. I think this totally refutes the melting pot concept, with an important distinction: you can't really tell if someone is of German or English ancestry in the US without breaking out the calipers, but you will always be able to tell if someone is hispanic on sight, even if they have perfectly integrated. As I see it, Germans were the best case scenario for the melting pot to work out and there are still places today in the US that have not fully integrated, and that was after two world wars with massive anti German propaganda campaigns. What are your thoughts on the future of Hispanic integration? I think its grim.

Thread for posting links to, and discussion of immigration related crimes in Sweden. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1chA4hWXfmlPvkhm5gpTkMCb1XDQ&hl&ll=64.61136893599594%2C5.812402550000002&z=4

When you’re in the watchtower of a ship and you see the ship is about to collide into an iceberg, warning the pilot about the incoming collision becomes top priority. If the building you’re in is on fire, the fire and the means of extinguishing the flame or escaping the building tends to take priority over other topics. In situations of great emergency, people’s priorities shift so that responding appropriately to that emergency becomes top priority. In situations of great emergency it is essential that those who are committed to fighting the great moral ills of the world also prioritize their focus rationally. If you are a doctor in a plague, you don’t want to step over the guy suffering from a flesh wound to attend to the person who only has a hang nail. Right now we are in a situation of great emergency not much different from the emergency the British faced in June. There is a fork in the road ahead to which we draw nearer and nearer to everyday. The paths up ahead lead to two separate destinations that couldn’t be further apart from one another. The path on the left leads to a world of doom. The path on the right leads to a world of possibility. The world of doom is the world we shall live in should Hillary Clinton — one of the most physically ill, mentally unstable, corrupt and wicked politicians of all time — be elected president. Hillary has made it clear that she will do to the United States what Angela Merkel has done to Germany. This means that Hillary Clinton will gradually transform the United States into a third world country by indiscriminately importing third worlders along with their anti-western cultures. In this world, the real threat of a nuclear war with Russia looms larger than it ever has. In this world, the West will fall. The world of possibility is the world we will live in should Donald Trump — a candidate that is unprecedented in the history of politics —become the next president of the United States. In this world, there is the possibility of preserving the West. In this world, we will be in a situation not much different from the situation of hope the British found themselves in after the EU referendum. Yet, there are those who have for months insisted that these two paths are equivalent, that there is no emergency, that it doesn’t matter which road we take, and that the people have chosen to focus on the emergencies which threatens the West have “lost their way.” In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who like to negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election. If we discuss the facts which show the dangers of importing millions of Islamic migrants into the First World, they are quick to remind us of the “big picture”, which is that the immigration is a symptom of the welfare state. If we talk about the facts which show how the media slanders Donald Trump, we are reminded of the “big picture”, which is that nobody should be president and that the state is an agency of violence. If we express a desire to vote with the hope of better conditions in a state of nature under coercion, they tell us we are the ones with the gun who wish to impose our will on millions of people. If we talk about the importance of preserving the West, we are then reminded how much more important it is to talk about peaceful parenting. They tell us that we are merely distracting ourselves with politics and swapping consistency for pragmatism, while they are the ones truly adhering to principles. They are fools. And the degree to which these people are overeager to boast about their “consistency” is the degree to which they have been consumed by arrogance. The people who bemoan Stef and other’s decision to focus on that which threatens the West as of late and then beam out these distress signals calling for a “return to form” simply aren’t listening. I am voting for Donald Trump to preserve the West. Preserving the West means preserving the progress Europeans have made in improving the relationship between parents and children for the past 150 years since Rousseau, which is absolutely necessary to bring a peaceful society. Mass immigration under Hillary Clinton will displace the most child friendly culture the world has ever produced with the child hostile cultures of the 3rd world. Displacing a high IQ population that adheres to Western values with a low IQ population that adheres to a culture which is antithetical to everything the West holds dear — and then expecting that ideas of personal and political liberty will take root and bloom just as well as they would within the high IQ population — is like replacing your flower garden’s rich soil with cement and then expecting that you’ll be able to grow daffodils and lilies just as well. You need a certain cultural soil for these ideas to have a chance at taking root. Thus, it’s perfectly consistent with the goal of getting to a free society through peaceful parenting to fight back against those who wish to destroy the West. It is not those of us who accept this reality who have abandoned our principles, but rather it is the grandiose anarchists and libertarians that constantly undermine and negate our efforts who have abandoned humility, who have abandoned curiosity, who have abandoned empiricism, who have abandoned empathy, and who have abandoned the West. As a consequence of choosing to selfishly indulge in their own cynicism at a time when the West needed defending the most, they will have have abandoned the cause of bringing the world towards a more free society founded upon the sturdy foundation that is peaceful parenting. They are in no position to lecture. Find more of my writing on Medium

United States Foreign-born Population http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/twps0081.html http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ Immigration to United States Demographics https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2000/Yearbook2000.pdf Economic Freedom Information http://www.heritage.org/index/download Lawful Permanent Resident Flow in United States https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/LPR%20Flow%20Report%202014_508.pdf Corruption Perceptions Index https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index National IQ by Country https://books.google.fr/books?id=i6XDQgAACAAJ https://books.google.fr/books?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country Larger vs. Smaller Government http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/PHC-Hispanic-Identity.pdf http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/19/asian-americans-a-mosaic-of-faiths-overview/ http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ Political Party Preferences http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/ http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012 Hispanic Voting Patterns http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/republicans-hispanic-problem--in-2-charts/2012/05/24/gJQAIBTqmU_blog.html http://www.fec.gov/pages/raceto.htm http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Opinion/Guest_Columns/102504schmal.htm http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/2012_Latino_vote_exit_poll_analysis_final_11-07-12.pdf Immigrants Voting Democrat http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012 http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/statistical-portrait-of-the-foreign-born-population-in-the-united-states-2012/ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html Libertarian Orientation http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013.AVS_WEB.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa580.pdf Welfare Usage http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdf Crime and Diversity http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-08-10-census-20-years-change_n.htm

Immigration: An Empiricist’s Perspective There are few issues which have been brought to the forefront of discussion this year that have been as contentious as the topic of immigration. Having accepted the validity of the non-aggression principle and property rights back in 2010, my default position on immigration since then has always been open borders. After being introduced to new data covered in Stefan Molyneux’s extensive library of content about the migrant crisis and immigration, I have changed my perspective on this issue. Here I’d like to share a few quotes from Stefan Molyneux taken from some of his presentations and listener conversations as a way to introduce crucial nuances that are essential to include in any analysis that aims to see the issue of immigration clearly. A whole lot of work was put into this. I hope you find this resource valuable. If so, please share. You can find medium version here. (Which is the version I'd recommend since it looks better and has picture. ) “Open Borders” is an oxymoron This whole ‘open borders’ thing — it’s a complete oxymoron. If you’ve got *open* it’s no border. It’s simply not a border. It’s just a line you can cross that is completely imaginary. So, Hillary is basically saying that she wants to be the last president of the United States because she doesn’t want the United States to exist afterwards because open borders is exactly that.In one way it’s like, “oh, free trade, free travel!” and so on, but everybody knows exactly which direction that travel is going to go. It’s going to go south to north.It’s not like you’re going to get masses of people moving from Canada to America, it’s going to be a massive, one way, gravy train of welfare dependent migrants coming across from South and Central America who are going to sit there and consume welfare at ungodly rates, 70% to 80% of some estimates, and going to vote democrat. -Stefan Molyneux (Quote from Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Second Presidential Debate Analysis 43:44) Open Borders is Just Another Government Program If you are against government subsidies to business, you are not against the free market. Would you agree? In fact, being for the free market, would that not lead you to oppose government subsidies? Now, would we not say that opposing government subsidies is a reasonable thing for a libertarian or an anarchist to do?When it comes to say, Syrians from the conflict; how do these Syrians get to the United States? Airfare or by ships and generally the airfare is paid for by the government because these people are not hugely rich. So, when they get to America they are met by legions of social workers who sign them up for every conceivable government program that can be imagined.And then they put their kids in government schools and the government schools budgets go up enormously because now you have multilingual issues to deal with, not to mention kids who have been educated according to different curriculums and different subjects.And who pays for all of that? Is it the Syrians themselves?So, immigration, in this particular context is paid for enormously by the state. So, the cost of resettling Middle Eastern refugees, if people were to send a thousand dollars to the middle east they could resettle someone from the Middle East in the Middle East.However, it’s almost thirteen thousand dollars to bring that person to the United States. So, immigration right now is highly subsidized. It is a highly subsidized government program for the most part, in this particular context.So, when I say that I’m against this kind of immigration, am I saying that we should initiate the use of force to keep people out? Well, the only reason they’re here is because the initiation of force. In other words, because of government subsidies.In I say, if I don’t want “Green Energy companies” to get billions of dollars in government subsidies and then people scream at me that I’m against the free market, you can understand that that would be a little bit frustrating if it happened month after month after month. So, this is highly subsidized human movement and frankly, at the expense of kids because there are fewer resources to bring to kids who are born in America because of all of these immigrants and not just the Middle East, but other places where language incompatibility is an issue.Thus, being against government subsidies, which is how the immigration in a lot of ways works these days is not being against the “free movement of human beings” anymore than being against government subsidies to business is against the free exchange of goods and ideas. — Stefan Molyneux ( Quote from FDR 3213 Sexual Market Value Olympics) Open Borders + Welfare State = The Initiation of Force “People say if people are not allowed to come into the country, then that is the initiation of the use of force. I completely agree with that. I completely and totally agree with that. However, if the actions of someone by entering a particular area results in the greater initiation of force, then it’s not as simple as people think. The problem is that people are showing it in isolation. So, let me give you a tiny example. If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force. If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what? He’s initiating the use of force. If he comes in while I’m sleeping and steals from me he is initiating the use of force. Now, if someone comes into my house because I’ve invited them and we’re going to play Yahtzee and Monopoly or he’s going to fix my toilet because I had Indian food, then he’s coming into my house voluntarily and he’s not initiating the use of force and neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me. So, the reality is that statistically, by and large and by far both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America. And so, simply by looking at putting a barrier around america to prevent people from coming into america and saying, ‘Well, that’s the only initiation of force that matters’ That’s ridiculous. There’s a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I’ve seen a few Libertarians talk about. But, immigrants use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens. So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives. And those natives include high utilizers of the welfare state such as blacks and Hispanics. Among illegal immigrants, it’s even higher. It’s more than twice the rate of natives. So, the reality is and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your ass that you can drill though your nipples and call them telescopes. The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, coming into america are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state. If you care about the welfare state, then you need to diminish the number of people on the welfare state. This is not brain surgery. People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and puts a roof over their heads that is necessary for their survival. And the fact that this is even debatable or even debated, I don’t even know what to say.” It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding something. And when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, and for illegal immigrants in particularly, get on welfare at a rate of 62%, those people in order to survive in america require massive amounts of government spending in America and indeed the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr. Steven Camarota has pointed out on this show, is by voting for an ever increasing welfare state. When, you get people coming in to a country who can only survive and live in that country because of government spending, what do you think they’re going to vote for? An expansion of extraction of government power? “ - Stefan Molyneux (Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) Well, Let’s Say That 99% of The Immigrants Coming Into America Will Accept Welfare. Is It Still Fair To Punish The Innocent 1% Who Will Not? Ethics would be from first principles, not from last minute emergencies and ridiculous made up nonsense, but from first principles. How can philosophy improve our lives? What does morality mean? What is virtue? Are there exceptions to the non-aggression principle? That is what morality and philosophy is about. Morality is not about ridiculously emergency, murder based, lifeboat, imaginary, non-existent situations. We’ve got to start working from first principles and figure out what is virtue?What is truth? What is reality? What is goodness? Is there a role for violence in society? If so, where? Is self-defense justifiable? Is the initiation of force justifiable? If so, how? If not, well, let’s get rid of it. And so, coming up with this kind of crazy shit to me is missing the entire point of philosophy. Start with first principles, not with last minute imaginary nonexistent emergencies. Don’t get into the trap. Reject the scenario. Don’t accept the premises of this kind of crazy stuff. This is not what philosophy and morality should be working with. These made-up scenarios will never happen. So, what these people are saying is that the most important question in philosophy is something that will never ever ever happen. You will never be in that situation. So, what this person is saying is philosophy is both abusive and irrelevant. Now, what will occur in your life is how well you treat those around you. Do you tell the truth? Do you refrain from abusing them physically, emotionally, verbally, sexually? When you see someone being hurt, whether it’s an adult or a child, will you intervene? Will you do something moral? Will you use the against me argument? Will you point out the gun in the room when it comes to people supporting statist violence? Will you oppose war? And what will you do with the people in your life who support war? These are all things people can do. Fuck this trolley bullshit. That’s something people will never experience. What I am always curious about is what actually can people do in their lives to advance the cause of virtue and truth and goodness and progress in the human experience. And this trolley stuff, I’d say it’s intellectual masturbation, but masturbation is a lot more fun than this sort of nonsense.” - Stefan Molyneux (Podcast 2278:The Evils Of Emergency Ethics.) The “Innocent Immigrant” Fallacy Caller: Well, it is the initiation of force to not allow people to enter into the country. “Yes, and it is to prevent a greater initiation of force by the massive consumption of the welfare state and dedication to a party that itself is dedicated to expanding government to the nth degree, which is the leftists. You’re only focusing on one side of the equation. The debt is all on innocent people because the debtis intergenerational. 100% of the debt is going to fall on the next generation. So, if you say that 10% or 20% or a couple of percentage points of the illegal immigrants who aren’t going to get on welfare are unjustly coerced, then okay. But, 100% of the debt that the remainder are generating is going to go on 100% of innocent people called the kids. So, you can raise me with 20 or 30% innocence and I’m going to trump you with 100% of innocence. First of all, nobody can tell who will or will not go on welfare, although there could be an IQ test that would help, but it’s illegal to administer it, so who cares. But, is it fair to say to the children that the quality or your education is going to be significantly worse because half the resources in your school district is going to go to figure out how to teach traumatized kids with an IQ of 85%. Do you have the right to inflict that kind of degradation on the quality of education on children across America? Are they not innocent? Do they not deserve as good an education as can be provided to them? Are you not stripping them of possibilities and futures? Plus, what about poor black kids who are having a significant degree of trouble competing with illegal immigrants who aren’t having to pay taxes of follow regulations to get jobs. What about the black kids? What about the native people? What about the whites, the Hispanics, the Native Americans, the blacks who can’t get jobs because wave after wave after wave of people are coming in and driving up the cost of legal jobs because of the amount of welfare taxes that have to be paid and driving down the cost of under the table jobs, which the immigrant networks are all set up to exploit, while no native networks exist. And so, what about the young black kid who can’t get a job because it’s been taken by an immigrant? More immigrants have come into America over the past decade than jobs have been created. So, statistically immigrants are taking away jobs and driving down wages — it’s supply and demand. Libertarians and free market economists should understand this. Huge numbers of low skill, low education and possibly low intellect people all coming into a country, what is that going to do to the price of low skilled, low education labor? It’s supply and demand bitches, you can’t fight it. So, what about those people? Are you going to stand in front of one hundred million American children and say, ‘Sorry, you don’t get music lessons. You don’t get to play outside. Your playground doesn’t get repaired. You have to sit with old textbooks in cold classrooms because I want people who don’t speak your language and who don’t know your cultural values to come in. And by the way, you’ll be in debt another 50,000 dollars for each of you because of my preference for open borders.’ Look, if people can say that then I admire their consistency, if not their ethical integrity, but these are the stark realities of the effects of immigration. Caller: You are a voluntaryist right? Right, which means I want a free society. Now, the way to get to a free society is for people to treat their children better. So, if I think a free society requires a country or a geographical area where people treat their children better, do you think that Europeans treat their children better or do you think that Muslims treat their children better? Do you think that a culture that has really focused on banning spanking or at least focused on reducing the amount of aggression in childhood is something that I would prefer to be surrounded by in my quest for a free society through better parenting or say people who think that sawing off the labia of twelve year old little girls is a really fucking great thing to do? Which group do you think is going to be better equipped to lead society to a free society through better parenting? Your average white western European christian or your average IQ 85 Islamic? The Europeans. So, if people from Europe since Rousseau for the past 150 years have focused on improving the relationship between parents and children — I believe it is absolutely functionally and totally necessary for peaceful parenting to bring a peaceful and free society, so if I want to live in a free society do I want people around who are better parents or who are worse parents? Better parents. It’s perfectly consistent with my goal for a free society to want people around who are better parents, rather than parents who are aggressive and violent and clitorectomy-based parents. Caller: But, in order to accomplish that you need to initiate force against innocent people. So, what? In order to not go to jail I have to pay the state. It’s not a moral situation. Don’t fucking put the morals on me, I’m the guy fighting it. Go yell at the IRS, why don’t you go yell at the people on welfare and tell them about the morally-compromised situation they’re in. Why the hell are people bringing it to me? Caller: Well, I’m curious because everything you say is usually morally consistent and it just breaks away… I am morally consistent. I have said in a situation where there is coercion, where there is violence no matter what there are no moral standards to be applied. There is no moral choice to be made in a coercive situation. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tell you to walk left or to walk right, whether you walk left or walk right is not a moral choice. No morality exists when there is coercion. When it comes to immigration, there is no possibility of a consistent moral choice at the moment. In the future, free society — open borders away! Fantastic! Because then we have a choice. Right now we have no choice because immigration is a giant government program and if the immigrants come in huge amounts of violence will be enacted against the young, against those on fixed incomes, and not to mention very high rates of crime among immigrant populations, which we’ve talked about before. So, if the immigrants from third-world countries come into America, it will result in the vast escalation and hazardously resulted, statistically, demonstrably, according to the experts with all the data — it has resulted in a vast increase in the initiation of force in society. And you say, ‘Ah, well keeping immigrants out also requires the initiation of force!’ Yes, let’s say that it does. So what? The initiation of force is going to happen under any context you can consider other than a magical, unicorn-based free society that will never occur tomorrow because libertarians wont focus on peaceful parenting. So, there’s going to be coercion no matter what. There’s coercion to keep them out and to keep them in there’s even more coercion. So, if you want the immigrants to come in just be honest and say, ‘I’m willing to accept the coercion of the immigrants coming in.’ But, it is dishonest and tendentious to the maximum to only focus on one small potential act of violence called keeping people out and to completely ignore all of the amounts of violence that is occurring by letting people in. I mean, if libertarians can stand in front of a group of hundreds and hundreds of Swedish women and say, ‘Yeah, it’s fine that you got raped because I don’t want to have border guards push people back’, then fine. Go talk to the Swedish women and say, ‘Your bruised and battered and blond faces because you got raped, fine, it’s for my moral self congratulation. It’s because I’m afraid of being called a racist, it’s not because I have any consistent application of the non-aggression principle, otherwise I’d be all over that spanking thing Stef’s been talking about forever. It’s because I wanna feel good about letting people in. I don’t wanna be thought of as a racist. I wanna be thought of a cosmopolitan. I wanna be thought of as an egalitarian and I just want to focus on one tiny little aspect of the initiation of force and ignore all of the other initiations of force that occur just to satisfy my moral high ground. Pathological altruism. But, if people are willing to say, ‘Yeah, I wanna let people in and the result is far greater crime, much worse educational outcomes for the children, massive increases in the national dept, and a complete entrenchment of the welfare state and all of the intended destruction on the poor the welfare state entails’, great! Fantastic. Say, ‘I don’t want that border. I don’t want that initiation of force at that border, I’m willing to take a far greater initiation of force elsewhere’, fine! Say it! Just say it and be honest about it. But, don’t be one of these people who are like, ‘Ah, yes, you see there’s this government program that created 500 jobs, so we’re now richer!’ The whole point of libertarian thinking and economic thinking and just plain thinking is to not look at the obvious benefits, but to look at the hidden costs. And there are huge violent, coercive, destructive, direct, repetitive, government escalating costs by allowing third-world people to come into a first world country. And if people want to have open borders to third-world immigrants they have to be honest about the violence that causes in society. - Stefan Molyneux (Podcast 3170- Dusty P3n!s Syndrome) Multiculturalism Destroys Societies Multiculturalism is a complete and total failure and I say this as somebody who was dedicated to multiculturalism literally for decades. But, when the data is there, only fools and dogmatists ignore it. We all have to accept the new data. The new data shows that multiculturalism destroys societies. It doesn’t just make them difficult and tense, it literally destroys society. We can see this occurring is Germany. We can see this occurring in Sweden. Sweden is now pushing back against all these immigrants because society is fucking breaking down because you have a bunch of IQ 84 people with a history of Islamic abuses and abusing swarming into a country and they have to be lectured not to rape people. Jesus god, go and look up immigrant crimes in Sweden. Look at how expensive it is. Look at how destructive it is. You want to see a rape culture, do you think these people should get raped because libertarians don’t like fences? Caller: Well, wouldn’t that be defensive force against individual aggressors, whereas (borders) is force against an entire category of people. My god man, you’re still focusing on only one side of the equation. As I said before, when they come into the country you are initiating force upon an entire categories of people. Who is paying for the Islamic immigrants in jail and on trial and all of the traumas inflicted, the lost productivity, the emotional traumas, who is paying for all of that in Sweden? Everyone! So, letting the people in is also initiating force against an entire category of people called tax payers. So, I’ll see your “it’s initiating force against one group of people” and I’ll say it’s initiating force against another group of people. That’s why there’s no moral choice to be made. You may look at some pragmatic and practical choices, which I choose to do. But, saying there’s some kind of principle you can apply here is madness. There’s no principle that’s possible because everywhere you turn there’s a gun. Now, I choose to turn to the less rapey gun. I prefer to turn to the gun that is not stuck in some woman’s vagina at the moment. I choose to turn to the lesser of two evils. And people say, “Well, it’s still evil!!” Okay, well, you tell me where there is no evil in this situation and I will award you with the knight’s cross of perfection and I will follow you and turn my show over to you. And I don’t mean that facetiously. If someone can explain how letting third world immigrants in is a non violent situation then they can show how there are no illegal immigrants on welfare or at least show that illegal immigrants don’t use welfare at higher rates than domestics because you could say, “well, you can’t allow people to have kids because 30% of them will end up on welfare.” Yeah, but for them the numbers are different and there is the capacity to stop immigration into America, there’s no capacity to stop people from breeding. So, there’s no moral answer to this. But, anybody with any pragmatic brains has got to recognize that bringing in people with no history in the free market, no appreciation of church and state(25% of whom want to use violence to oppose Sharia law and 50% of whom want to live under Sharia law) and that comes from a group of people whose religion commands them to lie to outsiders and to hide their true intentions. How the fuck is that suppose to result in a free society? Import millions of people who want to stone adulterers, import people who believe in honor killings and by the way who vastly outbreed the domestic population. How is that going to get you your free society? -Stefan Molyneux (FDR3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome — Call In Show — January 1st, 2016) A Free Society Requires A High IQ Population The reality is that the immigrants are only here, in general, and there are exceptions — they are only here for the social benefits. They are only going to Europe. Well, let’s look at Hispanic immigrants. As Stephen Camarata pointed out, for a family of four your health care insurance is going to cost you 20k a year. 20,000 dollars a year. See, the expense of things in a free society is what keeps the low IQ people out. Because if you have — and I’m not saying it’s a free market just go with me on this at the moment — let’s say your healthcare cost is so advanced and so powerful and so productive and so all healing. Let’s say your healthcare costs 20,000 dollars a year for insurance. What that means is that people who can’t make at least 30 dollars an hour can’t come in because they can’t even afford the health insurance not even counting the deductibles and things like rent and food and cars and gas and school, etc. So, when you have a free society or a relatively free society, things are kind of expensive because they’re high quality. So, people can only come illegally into America because the government pays the bills they can’t afford to pay. To pay 20,000 dollars for a family of four’s health insurance for a year means if you make 10 dollars an hour and pay no taxes and have no deductions you can barely afford to pay for the health insurance, which means that if you don’t make much money, — in other words if you’re not educated, if you’re not smart — then you don’t get to go to that country. You can’t make it. You can’t make it. And this is how a free society has a natural shield against low IQ people coming in. And why do I say low IQ people? Because a free society requires high IQ populations. Because you cannot point to one single god damn place on this Earth where you have a low IQ population and a free society. A free society requires a high IQ population and those high IQ populations can come from Somolia, which we see with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, they can come from Japan, they can come from Scotland, they can come from Eritrea, etc. And a free society is expensive enough that low IQ people need not apply. Now, if you violate that free society with forced association and government immigration, stopping immigration is ending a government program. -Stefan Molyneux (FDR3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome — Call In Show — January 1st, 2016) Forced Association “To become more prosperous we should open our borders”- Jeffrey Tucker You may not like it that someone who doesn’t speak your language, and who doesn’t respect your values, and who wants to impose horrible immoral laws upon you and your children and in particular women in your family — you may not like that. And in a free society you can choose not to interact with that person. But, in the government called immigration you are forced by gunpoint to not only interact with that person, but to pay for that person. You are forced to pay for that person, half of whom want to replace reasonable descendants of Anglo-Saxon law with god awful primitive, barbaric, Sharia Law. You are forced to pay for them. You are forced to associate with them and hire them because if you don’t have proportional representation you could get sued. You are forced to hire them, forced to rent to them, forced to interact with them, forced to pay all their doctors bills, food bills, housing bills, and everything. You are forced to pay for people who, if at least half of whom got their way you wouldn’t want to get out of bed because your life wouldn’t be worth living. Immigration is a government program. The immigrants are in general here for subsidies. So, when I oppose immigration and people then think I’m somehow pro-government that’s like saying I’m pro-government for being against the welfare state. I’m against immigration because it is a government program. In a free society with no welfare state and free association, people can come and go, I don’t give a shit. I don’t care who moves in three streets down the road in a free society. But, when people pouring in across the border interfere with my daughter’s ability to get a quality education, if she were in government schools, interfere with my daughter’s ability to get a job in the future, interfere with my daughter’s ability to go through life without being called a racist because the vast majority of these people come from low IQ populations — they’re going to fail because it’s a high IQ society. They’re going to fail and who’s going to get blamed for that failure? Genetics? I don’t think so. White people are going to be blamed and my daughter’s going to get called a racist. I take that pretty fucking personally. -Stefan Molyneux (FDR3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome — Call In Show — January 1st, 2016) Just Focus On The Welfare State? If tomorrow we said let’s stop subsidies to big business people would say, “it’s going to cause suffering and pain, but it’s what’s needed.” And if we say stop subsidies to immigrant, great. But, there’s no way to stop subsidies to immigrants when more and more immigrants come in and become dependent on those subsidies. That’s like saying let’s get 90% of companies dependent on government money and then we’re going to lobby companies to cut government spending. How could that be a sane proposal in any rational universe? Immigration is a government program. By stopping immigration, sensible people are saying let’s stop the government program. Let’s stop people coming in who are going to want more and more government so we can have a civilized discussion about the role of the state in society without massive dependent self-interest completely skewing the conversation. You cannot have a sensible conversation about drug addiction with someone who is currently addicted to cocaine. Immigration is a government program. It requires massive spending, massive social controls, massive violations of freedom of association through forced association, it destabilizes communities, it lowers the quality of life in those communities, and it is currently tearing America apart. Stefan Molyneux (FDR3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome — Call In Show — January 1st, 2016) Well, You Can’t Judge The Immigrants Since They’re Just Taking What’s Available To Them. The Politicians Allow It To Happen. Here’s how you can judge the immigrants. And this is not particular to Muslim immigrants. Let’s say that there was some Japanese policy, that you could go live in Japan and you could go and get 5000 dollars a month ‘for free’, so to speak, from the taxpayers in Japan. And, if I were to think of going for whatever reason, I think I’d say to myself,‘Well, wait a minute. I haven’t paid into this system. I’m going to go there and I’m going to squat on the necks of the Japanese taxpayers.’ Because the welfare state was originally suppose to work this way: you pay your taxes, if there’s some emergency, we make sure you don’t starve to death until you get back on your feet. That was sort of how it was suppose to work in the first place and it wasn’t an absolute disaster when it first started. But, I would feel really bad. I would feel really bad and it would stop me from doing it, to go to Japan and know that all the 5000 dollars a month that I was getting was coming from a system I had never paid into and it was being paid for against the Japanese people’s will. Because it’s tax money, which means they don’t want it. If it’s a charity and someone sponsors me, that’s different. That’s voluntary. Now, this to me is one of the basic tests of the whole migrant situation. And one of the basic tests of the whole migrant situation is, are the migrants emotionally aware that they’re coming here and taking money from a system they never paid into? The fact that they don’t care means that there’s an empathy mismatch, to put it as nicely as possible. So, what it means is, if they are willing to come and take all of this government money and in the states 90 to 95% of all the Muslim migrants who arrive goes on welfare and a lot of them stay on it for a long time if not forever. And also there are minimum wage laws, which means in Germany two-thirds of the Syrian migrants are functionally illiterate and there’s been some research that says if they don’t hugely lower the minimum wage laws, then these people can never really produce enough value. So, they’re going to come on welfare and it’s the same thing with the Hispanics, the people from South and Central America, they’re moving north into the United States, they come and they get on welfare. Now, do they know that they’ve never paid into this system and that the money has been transferred against the domestic population’s will through the violence of taxation? Now there’s either one of two options. Either A. They do know that and they don’t care fundamentally. “Hey! Free stuff! Who cares? Free stuff.“ It’s not free, assholes. It’s not free. People are working from dawn to dusk, not seeing their kids, to pay for you and your hammock and your tequila. (That’s not of course a reference to the Muslims who are not big on alcohol.) That is the question. Either they do know that they’re taking money from people against their will from a system that they never paid into and they don’t fucking care, in which case sorry, you’re an asshole! They’re coming in and taking money from my pocket through the power of the state. And either you know that’s happening, but you want the money anyway, in which case you’re an asshole or you don’t even know that, in which case you’re not smart enough to do anything of value in this society. Either way, not a fan.” -Stefan Molyneux (ISIS Murdered My Friends — Call In Show — March 23rd, 2016,Podcast 3238–1:34:00) Muh Principles! Are people willing to go and talk to the families of the victims of the San Bernardino shootings and say, “Yeah, it was totally worth it because I’m against the initiation of force. So, the blood soaked into the carpets of the dead people and the funerals and the missing fathers and brothers and mothers and sisters and children — all worth it.” Are people willing to go to the concert goers in Paris where 130 plus were slaughtered and say, “No, it’s worth it because I’m against the initiation of force.” That is not a rational situation. We must abandon the hope of a purely moral situation in an immoral environment like this and work as hard as we can for the long term minimization and stopping of the growth of violence. And if stopping immigration is the least of the evils when it comes to stopping the growth of violence. If we stop immigration at least we stop the number of people accumulating on the welfare rolls. At least we stop the continued dumbing down of education because it’;s turned into a tower of babble where you have 18 kids and 15 languages you gotta teach. And it reduces the amount of criminality because immigrants, particularly from 3rd world countries, are vastly over-represented in the ranks of the violent and criminal. So, right now stopping immigration is stopping a giant government program and if libertarians are not against stopping government programs then they aren’t libertarians. At all. They’re just cowards and cucks who are terrified of the media and of being called racist. And they should just admit that, “I’m chicken shit. I don’t like to be called racist. I don’t like to think that any culture is superior to any other culture. I’m a total egalitarian. I’m a cultural communist and that’s all I have to say” and then just drop the mic and walk out of the room. - Stefan Molyneux (FDR3170 Dusty P3n!s Syndrome — Call In Show — January 1st, 2016) Lecturing The Kidnapped Caller: It seems to many people that you are for restrictions on immigration, provided that a welfare state exists. You think that it’s a bad thing that immigrants come to the United States because they’ll vote for welfare. And provided that the welfare state exists, the United States should prevent Immigrants from coming in because they will vote for enlarging the welfare state. Is that not true? Am I mischaracterizing your position? Stef: Well, to say that I support the initiation of force or that I support a government program is a very complicated thing to put across. Now, I will tell you what I repeatedly have said. I’m guessing, have you only read quotes other people have posted about me or have you listened to shows where I’ve talked about this? Caller: I’m a long time listener of your show. Stef: Okay, so what have I said with regards to government immigration, government programs, in terms of its relationship to ethics? Caller: As far as I know you don’t think the state changes the moral landscape at all. We still have the same moral duties that we’d have if the state didn’t exist. Stef: What? I don’t know what that means. Caller: So, you think that whether or not the state exists, we have the same moral rights and the same obligations, correct? Stef: Whether or not the state exists, we have the same moral rights and the same obligation? Again, I’m sorry, I don’t know what that means. Explain that to me a little more. Caller: Sure. We have an obligation not to coerce other people, right? Stef: Again, I don’t know what this means and I’m not trying to be dense. Are you saying that the initiation of force regardless whether the state is there or not, everyone has the same requirement to not initiate force? Caller: Yeah. Stef: But, the state is the initiation of force. So, if there is a state that exists then by definition there are millions of people who thoroughly endorse the initiation of force. So, I’m not sure what it would mean to say what you’re saying. Caller: Alright, so let’s imagine that we live in an anarchist society and that there’s no state. You are morally obliged, it is immoral for you to steal from someone else? Stef: In a free society, absolutely, stealing is immoral. Caller: Is stealing not immoral if we’re living in an unfree society? So, if we have a state and the state steals from everyone, is it still immoral to steal? Stef: Well, if you’re concerned about the morality of stealing, why wouldn’t you go and talk to the state who’s doing the vast majority of the stealing? Why would you focus on a podcaster? I’m just kind of curious about this. Why focus on me as an individual if the state is doing the vast majority of stealing? And the reason I’m saying all of this is that, it is wrong to destroy people’s property. However, if they kidnap you and lock you in a basement are you justified in breaking down the door of the basement in order to escape? See, you’re lecturing the guy down in the basement, who is locked in the basement, you’re lecturing him and saying,”but you cannot destroy property even if you’ve been locked in the basement! It’s immoral to break down someone’s door, to break their window!” So, why are you not talking to the kidnappers rather than the guy locked up? I’m just kind of confused. Caller: I’m just generally interested in your position on immigration. I’m not lecturing you as if you’re the cause of statism and all evil in the world. Stef: But, you started with an anarchist society. Of course, if we live in a free society and people in general recognize that the initiation of force is wrong and theft is wrong, of course it’s absolutely immoral to steal. And look, in a free society, what the hell would I care who lives where? And also, even if I did care, what conceivable mechanism would be put in place to enforce my particular preferences? There would not be this giant apparatus of the state controlling human movement. So, in a free society of course you should not initiate the use of force and *moving* is not the initiation of force. So, I’ve said that repeatedly and I don’t see how that would be a violation of any principles that I have put forward in the past. Caller: Okay, so in a free society or an unfree society, the same actions of the same principles hold in both places, right? Stef: Absolutely not. They absolutely do not. And I have said this so many times, you have to have worked fairly hard to miss it I’m afraid. Of course the same moral standards don’t apply to a statist society as they do to a free society. Caller: But, it seems like things like rape are always wrong. It doesn’t matter if there is institutionalized rape of any thing like that. Stef: No, listen, we can’t bring rape into this because that is a moral crime that can never be justified, but you can steal something back that’s been stolen from you. Caller: I don’t think that would still fall under the definition of stealing. Stef: No, I understand all of that. Just for those who are dead set against understanding what I have said repeatedly and clearly is that when you are in a statist environment ethics do not apply because you are in a situation of coercion. Half of your property is going to be taken from you by force, your children are usually going to be forced to go into government schools, or you are at least forced to pay for those government schools, which result in massive amounts of indoctrination. Your property is not your own because you have to rent it by paying property taxes or they’ll take it away from you.Your productivity and your life and your labor and the productivity of your future life and labor of your children are all stolen from by the government to borrow money collateral from their future productivity. Your money is not your own because you can take it out of the bank put it under your mattress only for the invisible government elves of inflation to steal it from you repeatedly, so you are in a situation of near universal compulsion when you are a basal of the state. So, when you come to me and say, ‘Well, what moral rules apply when you’re dealing with the state?’ — I say, as I’ve said a million times before, the answer to that would be: none. Because you are a victim and are encased and are enclosed in a situation of near universal compulsion and coercion, moral rules that would apply to a situation of choice do not apply. Caller: You still think that there are moral rules that dictate respect for one another right? Stef: In situation of choice, absolutely. Morality is universal. Morality does not apply when you are in a situation of coercion. So, this is an extreme example, if someone has a gun to your head, what is the moral thing to do? If someone has a gun to your head and says, ‘shoot that cat.’ What is the moral thing to do? Caller: Well, I don’t believe in animal rights, I think you can kill the cat regardless. Stef: Okay, if someone says, ‘shoot that homeless man.’ What is the moral thing to do? Caller: I think you’re obliged not to shoot the homeless man. Stef: That is the wrong answer. Morally, there is no moral thing to do. When you have a gun to your head, choice and all of that is out the window. If we’re going to have moral sensitivity to any situation, we reserve our moral condemnation for the man who has a gun to someone’s head, not to what that panicked, freaked out human being does in a moment extremity. Do you see? You’re jumping over the guy who has got the gun to your head and you’re trying to lecture the guy who has a gun to his head. I don’t reserve my moral lecturing to the guy with a gun barrel to the head, I reserve my moral lecturing to the guy with the gun. (From Podcast 3123 Sexual Market Value Call-In Show)

When I read Tragedy & Hope, I was absolutely blown away by the brilliant and cutting mind of Carroll Quigley. One of the passages that always stuck out to me, was near the end of the book when Quigley goes over Latin America in some detail. The thought had never occurred to me before, and I have never heard anyone discuss it or mention it after, that Latin American culture could have a large Islamic influence. Quigley refers to this as The Pakistani-Peruvian Axis. With the state of current events in Western Civilization involving massive immigration from 3rd world cultures (Mexico/Latin America in the US, Syria/Middle East in Europe), I felt that it is worth it to share this idea of Quigley's in a more digestible format. The passage from the book is only 8 pages long, so I'm able to present the idea in audio format without asking a person to spend months grinding through a 1300-page tome. I appreciate comments, thoughts, and analyses!

WJC statement from speech given on 10/31/2016 (quoted below) in support of 3rd world immigration reveals a motivation that Stefan has been explaining for a long time, but is hardly ever mooted by the MSM. This sounds like content from a leaked e-mail, but he simply stated it in a public speech. from http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/21/bill-clinton-slams-old-gray-haired-white-guys-says-immigration-only-thing-keeping-us-young/: “All these old gray-haired white guys, how do they think our Social Security is going to be paid out and our Medicare is going to get funded?,” Clinton stated:

I took the title from the front page of the Globe & Mail today. I was once an illegal immigrant who was deported over the southern border, refiled and came back legally. I now hold permanent residence for where I was once deported. I hate to begin an argument with the phrase; "as a ______." Fortunately I didn't get around to forming an argument.. so here is my life story- raw facts as unemotional as I can present it Introduction This situation is going to sound complicated due to my parents avoiding the proper system, then even further complicated by immigration red tape. My parents moved to Canada before I was born, they are both Americans. They ran a family business, got a home and created family there. Ironically while living in Canada my mother went through the trouble of making sure my brother and I would be born in Michigan like the rest of the family... so we could be presidents... This would of required a considerable amount of planning, so it is understandable why when having her final child as mother to two kids already, one seven and in school she stayed at the home in Canada. We made fun of my sister a lot growing up as being the sole Canadian in the family... then like karma when I was 17 I got deported for not being Canadian and she got to stay.... Since moving to Canada for temporary work they had settled down and decided they wanted to make home there now. This is where chaos ensues. Up until that point everything was fine, my classmates would always insist I was just like them but I would contend we were very different. I would like to explore these feelings of kinship later, but lets get back to the plot. My parents decided that moving forward the best step would be to hire a family immigration attorney. The lawyer then determined the best option was to apply for status from within Canada... apparently this set off a red flag that notified Canadian authorities that we were in the country illegally. Other attorneys have since said we should of applied for status from outside of Canada and would of been fine. The immigration racket is very corrupt and dirty, it is an open secret by everyone in it that you must abuse the options- and that only a fool would do everything properly.... well my parents hired a fool. This triggered a long series of delaying judgement while filing for whatever was viable, humanitarian compassion and aid, family reunification, anything that works is on the table. These forms costs thousands, sometimes in the tens of thousands to get done. As the parent is must be frustrating doing all of this... and then coming up with an answer to the kids when they ask what is up with our status, am I going to be able to get a job finally? I had a coop at a bank for school I couldn't proceed with cause it was going to "just a couple more weeks till our papers came in," little more than a year later I was being deported. The judgement took many years. By the time we finally did all get status my brother was over the age to be included as a dependent for the family migration... he was maybe in middle school, at least still in high school when it began... a few months later I would be in the same boat and like him still without status today. The judgement was that we were illegal immigrants or something, I'm not sure... I always thought of myself as a foreign national. The process went down like this... our immigration was rejected, at this point we were given a removal order. Two months into my last year of high school I had to go with my parents to the immigration office in Niagara Falls, they were waiting to receive, and process us. We were escorted over the bridge and handed off to the American border patrol. The removal order was placed on my two parents and me forcing us to leave the country by the date given, an additional exclusion order was put on my parents barring them from entry for 1 year. My brother was not included as he had been dropped from the family migration at this point, and was living in Michigan. my sister- the Canadian didn't have to go with us, there was no immigration hassle for her... I mean other than losing her family and having to move around from house to house to family friends like the kids from 'the series of unfortunate events' Now ask me anything so we can make a thread outta this.

To preface, I am taking a complete Devil's Advocate position. Although no liberal in my encounters has made this argument and not sure if they would even connect this dot, it came to my mind and wanted to be well prepared in advanced in case this argument comes up and figure out how to rebut it with strong, consistent arguments. I imagine one day a liberal to come and argue....hey... you want to lift bans on guns, which can be used dangerously, so why not lift bans on immigration since only some immigrants are dangerous. Is there a equivilency to argue here? How would one counter?

Regarding the immigration to Israel and rest of the world. Stephan had on numerous times said that the state of Israel was paying North African Jews to leave the country. As someone that lives in Israel, I was unable to find any reliable source for that and I would really love to see the ones that you have. Also I think that saying that most Jews are for immigration is not correct as well if you take into account the largest Jewish group, the one that actually lives in Israel. Most of them are right leaning and very well against unfiltered immigration anywhere in the world not only Israel. My spoken English is not good enough for a live interaction, however I would really like to discuss some of those issues either with Stephan or Michael. Cheers and keep up the good work.

This is such a common argument among libertarians and the MSM. It goes something like, "Of course Islamists hate America, we're always invading and bombing their country!" Sounds valid, but how much water does this theory hold? I was reading an essay by Bruce Bawer called "Crisis in Europe", published by Hudson Review 2006 (link to article on JSTOR below), which puts forward an interesting answer to this question. In it he draws on the scholar Bernard Lewis, author of The Crisis of Islam: "It's not American imperialism or exploitation that provokes Islamists but rather the seductive appeal of American culture, their own attraction to [it] which appalls them.... while outright Russian imperialism--including the Soviet Union's harsh suppression of Islam within its borders--has been a far more detrimental factor in the lives of Muslims than anything America has ever done. Russia has been criticized by Muslim leaders far less than America has." Bawer's essay focuses on the topic of Muslim non-integration into European culture. For this reason alone, it's well worth a read. Here's more from Bawer:

Hi, Just wanted to share a thought I had today and get some feedback on whether or not it makes sense. Obviously in so far as immigration is contigent on welfare being available to immigrants it is a policy of the state but if the state is stopping people who would find work in a country from entering it in order to prevent wages dropping is this not an act of force to prevent voluntary association between workers and employers? If a company finds a person willing to do work for a wage lower than those already in the country is the government "right" to prevent this? Surely we should be free to voluntarily associate with anyone even if it is to the detriment of those already in the georaphic area? Is there are moral justification for preventing lower wage workers from entering the work force to preserve the economic benefits that the current system allows for citizens? I don't mean to suggest that this is an argument for entirely open borders but providing a job exists in the country one is immigrating to then what is the moral argument for stopping this as we currently do? Look forward to your thoughts.

Check out article version on Medium here! :https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18#.1mcn6cxx5 There’s a rather interesting objection I’ve heard in response to some of the arguments Stefan Molyneux has made in videos such as, “What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Crisis”. It’s an objection that I’ve seen frequently enough that I think it deserves a response. The objection goes like this: “Stef talks about the terrible consequences of open borders in a welfare state. He says the mass importation of millions of people who are part of a culture that is antithetical to western values will result in a bloodbath, not assimilation, particularly because the welfare state allows for these little isolated communities wherein nobody has to adapt to the native culture at all, which would be required to some degree in a free society in order to enter into the job market. In other words, Stef is saying the consequences of open borders will be bad. But, Stef has also said that, ‘consequences don’t matter, only principles’ such as the non aggression principle, and it is a violation of the non aggression principle to close the borders. So, isn’t Stef being hypocritical? “ Admittedly, I am exaggerating a little bit. The objections I’ve read like this aren’t nearly as humble, curious, or articulate. But besides that, why is this objection wrong? Well, the first and most common mistake I see people make when they’re criticizing Stef is that they ignore context. This is not a minor error. This is like misreading the nutritionist’s recommendations so that you think it says to take 500 grams of a supplement, rather than 500 mg and then declaring the nutritionist is “trying to get people killed!” It shows a considerable lack of attention to detail. This is an important distinction. The people who are making the argument from consequences are the CEO’s , the leftists, and the politicians who are saying, ‘The most effective way to help the migrants would be to take them in. Taking in the migrants will have good consequences for the economy. Therefore, we should take in the migrants.” Talking about consequences is entirely appropriate when you are rebutting an argument from consequences. Stef is rebutting this mainstream narrative that taking in the migrant is the best way to help them by saying, “Actually, taking the migrants in is not the most effective way to help them, nor will taking in the migrants who hold an opposing culture benefit society and here’s the data that shows why. People imagine that Stef, by simply pointing out these facts is making a leap to saying, “Therefore, we should close the borders because the consequences of open borders would be bad.” It is true that Stef has said that there would be practical consequences to halting the mass importation of child hostile cultures into, for example, the United States that would be beneficial, despite the fact that closing the borders would be a violation of the nonaggression principle. “If the path to a free society requires friendly parents and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds or thousands, if not millions of child unfriendly or child hostile cultures and if Donald Trump can put a stop to that, then that buys some time to convince people closer to the child friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about. I don’t view Donald Trump as someone who is going to bring about a free society, but if Donald Trump can buy enough time for the peaceful parenting message to spread against the massive influx of child unfriendly cultures and histories coming into america, which not only means that there are more people who are coming in who are child hostile, but it also means that the quality of the people’s childhoods and adult lives become tax slaves to child unfriendly cultures, the quality of families declines even for the people who are native. ( See Stefan Molyneux Podcast 3174 for full quote. ) But, because there’s a violation of the non aggression principle either way, since opening the borders also violates freedom of association due to the fact that so many illegal immigrants take welfare, it doesn’t matter. There’s no ideal short term moral solution to the problem and because of this all you can do is look at the practicality of each option and the evidence seems to suggest that closing the borders would result in less force that allowing them to be open. (See Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) “People say if people are not allowed to come into the country, then that is the initiation of the use of force. I completely agree with that. I completely and totally agree with that. However, if the actions of someone by entering a particular area results in the greater initiation of force, then it’s not as simple as people think. The problem is that people are showing it in isolation. So, let me give you a tiny example. If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force. If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what? He’s initiating the use of force. If he comes in while I’m sleeping and steals from me he is initiating the use of force. Now, if someone comes into my house because I’ve invited them and we’re going to play Yahtzee and Monopoly or he’s going to fix my toilet because I had Indian food, then he’s coming into my house voluntarily and he’s not initiating the use of force and neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me. So, the reality is that statistically, by and large and by far both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America. And so, simply by looking at putting putting a barrier around america to prevent people from coming into america and saying, ‘Well, that’s the only initiation of force that matters’ That’s ridiculous. There’s a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I’ve seen a few Libertarians talk about. But, immigrants use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens. So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives. And those natives include high utilizers of the welfare state such as blacks and hispanics. Among illegal immigrants, it’s even higher. It’s more than twice the rate of natives. So, the reality is and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your ass that you can drill though your nipples and call them telescopes. The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, coming into america are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state. If you care about the welfare state, then you need to diminish the number of people on the welfare state. This is not brain surgery. People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and puts a roof over their heads that is necessary for their survival. And the fact that this is even debatable or even debated, I don;t even know what to say. It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding something. And when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, and for illegal immigrants in particularly, get on welfare at a rate of 62%, those people in order to survive in america require massive amounts of government spending in America and indeed the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr. Steven Camarota has pointed out on this show, is by voting for an ever increasing welfare state. When, you get people coming in to a country who can only survive and live in that country because of government spending, what do you think they’re going to vote for? An expansion of extraction of government power? “- Stefan Molyneux(Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) Still, even if closing closing the borders would result in less force than allowing them to be open, there’s a difference between saying, “If open borders, the consequences will not be good” vs “ Because the consequences will not be good if we open borders we SHOULD do X, such as close the borders or vote for Donald Trump.” When Stef says things like consequences don’t matter he was saying that the validity of a moral theory cannot be determined based on its outcome. If the consequences to freeing the slaves are negative, that is irrelevant because slavery is immoral. Context is key. Criticizing the government program called open borders is not by default endorsing a statist solution to the problem. It’s merely pointing out the facts. However, whenever you start to criticize open borders as the government program it truly is people, usually Libertarians, without giving your argument a moment’s thought will jump to the conclusion that you must saying, “I think we should shoot people!” The goal is not to impact statist policies, but to impact parenting. There is no contradiction. “Am I in support of closing the borders? I’m not sure what that would even mean? Because that would mean to say that I am in support of a government doing something effective towards whatever end I might have, which would be to accept that the government could do something competently”- (Stefan Molyneux Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration?) Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisti... http://www.theguardian.com/world/data... http://www.economist.com/news/europe/... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/0... http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-... http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/ca... https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s... http://www.newsweek.com/become-even-more-prosperous-we-should-open-our-borders-372875

Hello, we are a young couple (23 years old), currently living in Greece and we would like to move to Singapore/Australia/New Zealand. We have no friends or relatives in any of those places. We chose those countries due to their economic freedom, opportunities and high quality of life. Regarding ourselves, my name is Dimitris Papadiotis and the last 2 years I started studying philosophy here, in freedomain radio which changed my life!! In february (2016) I will graduate from my bachelor's degree in mathematics, specialized in statistics, from the University of Ioannina and I am going to be approximately at the top 10%. IQ score of 128. I am willing to work hard, learn new things and develop new skills. I have almost no working experience. and I am Maria Mourkou, I graduated from the department of Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies from the University of Macedonia in November 2014 (top 12,79%) . I can communicate (write and speak) in greek, english, french (level C2) and also russian and bulgarian (level B1). IQ score of 123. You can check my working experience below: April 2015 - October 2015: Vernicol SA , Department: foreign affairs, public tenders October 2014 - January 2015: CTG Advertising, Independent partner, Door to Door Sales February 2014 - April 2014: Internship in 18-24 Travel Agency, Department: Social Marketing 2011 - 2014: Thessaloniki International Fair, Department: Promotion, Auxiliary Staff (10 days each year) We are searching for employment and social network. It would be very much appreciated if you can help us in any way, shape or form!

Hello all! I have listened to the podcasts about the Paris attacks and immigration etc. I remember Stefan pointed out that refugees, by very definition must relocate to the nearest safe zone and must return when stability is established. I wanted to go back and find the source for that can can't remember which podcast this was in. If anyone has sources on this, I would be grateful to have. With that said, is this the 'international community' definition and terms/legal language? Are their caveats of countries receiving refugees/migrants from countries they are currently at war with? or is that sort of an optional preference? Thanks!

The topic of Immigration - and Illegal Immigrants, Refugees or Migrants – provokes an incredibly strong reaction from many different people. With Donald Trumps’ rapid rise in American politics and his incredibly controversial statements Illegal Immigrants many people are letting their ideology trump facts, reason and evidence. This presentation is the first in a series which looks to dispel the myths about Immigrants – and aims to separate the facts from the fiction with strict data analysis. Why are people so concerned about Immigration in the United States of America? Who is coming into the United States both legally and illegally - and how has it changed over time? Are Illegal Immigrants able to vote? How do Immigrants impact electoral politics? Do Immigrants favor big government or smaller government? How do their political positions change over time - are Immigrants friends of freedom? Sources Electoral College System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216 Illegal Immigrant Voting http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/ United States Foreign-born Population http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/twps0081.html http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ Demographics https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2000/Yearbook2000.pdf Economic Freedom by Region http://www.heritage.org/index/download National Annenberg Election Survey 2010 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/political-communication/naes/ Cooperative Congressional Election Study https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:1902.1/17705 http://www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf View of Capitalism http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/ Larger vs. Smaller Government http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/PHC-Hispanic-Identity.pdf http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/19/asian-americans-a-mosaic-of-faiths-overview/ http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/ Political Party Preferences http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/ Hispanic Voting Patterns http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/republicans-hispanic-problem--in-2-charts/2012/05/24/gJQAIBTqmU_blog.html http://www.fec.gov/pages/raceto.htm http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Opinion/Guest_Columns/102504schmal.htm http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/2012_Latino_vote_exit_poll_analysis_final_11-07-12.pdf http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-on-republican-prospects-1980-2012 Libertarian? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013.AVS_WEB.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa580.pdf The Truth About Immigration: What They Won't Tell You! IQ and Immigration | Jason Richwine and Stefan Molyneux

...and, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation." Some of these things are covered in a few other forum threads, so please excuse the uncited references. I am a Philosopher King donor, who has donated almost a thousand dollars to this conversation. I am close to asking for my money back. I listened to their recent podcast, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation," and felt angry and frustrated at the rightward, Hoppean turn the conversation took. They seemed to paint almost all Mexican ("illegal") immigrants with the same broad brush. "They come from a society that inflicts abuse on their children!" "They don't peacefully parent their kids and grow up all screwed up!" There are people in the US like that! What am I supposed to do, advocate for a phalanx of border guards at the state border to keep North Carolinians from "invading" my state? If not, why not? Because the line on a map is thicker? As an anarchist, the only borders I respect are property lines. Private property lines. Don't people own the land on the other side of the Rio Grande? (Hey, that rhymes!) Or is the whole premise of "border security" that they outsource that power the government? Is that it? I think Mike mentioned that the US government should still obey the immigration laws in this country. Even if those laws are consummately unconstitutional? The US Constitution only give the federal government the power over natualization. Immigration was originally left to the states. (I have a problem with that as well, but that's another matter.) The US government usurped this power with the Page Act of 1875, as a means of stemming the tide of Chinese "taking American jobs." (Some things never change, unfortunately.) Mexicans (or other immigrants) do not "take American jobs." They do not belong to Americans, they belong to the employers. The employers can (or, at least, should) give those jobs to whomever the employer wants. I also felt angry when I realized that they were very supportive of Trump's policy on this. So, let me get this straight... Ron Paul, no, Donald Trump, Hell Yeah! I felt angered when Stef mangled people in this conversation who dared to say that Dr. Paul should be commended for his support of freedom-oriented legislation, and may even be voted for. (Yes, we all know that voting doesn't solve anything.) But Trump, who isn't freedom-oriented on pretty much anything, gets drooled over by Stef and the gang? I'm curious as to the rationale. (Legitimately. I really can't put the proper tone in a written forum post.) Is it because, unlike Ron Paul, Donald Trump doesn't even give the pretense of being a libertarian? Is that it? Yes, I know that no one of the Freedomain Radio staff would officialy support the Donald politically (Stef can't- he's Canadian), but still... I would advise you to please not fall into the same trap I'm trying to avoid- seeing people as homogeneous. I understand that not all migrants are sympathetic, hard-working, conscientious people, any more than they are all money-grubbing, welfare-statist, child-beating, irrational religionists. I don't think any of us are asserting that. However, you know that national "border security" and immigration policies don't work on a case-by-case basis. It winds up being, "ship alla them Moo-slum sand niggers'a right back whur they came frum!" Or worse, as a local radio talk show host said about people fleeing Cuba a few years back, shoot to kill on sight. Which brings me to the "European Migration Crisis" podcast... A lot of the cultural invasion topics from the Trump Conversation podcast were brought up here, with the subsequent trepidations from me. However, I noted, with some dismay, that Stef didn't address the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room... the Gun in the Room. Another poster on another forum topic addressing this mentioned this, but for those who haven't read it, let me say it. These diparate people from across the Middle East didn't, en masse, get up one fine, peaceful day in Syria (or Afghanistan) and say to themselves, "You know, Syria is great and all, but you know who needs themselves some Syria? Portugal!" They are fleeing these areas because these European citizens supported their governments' involvement in the War on Terror and have sent some of their fellow citizens there to bomb, shoot, and irradiate these Middle Easterners' families and friends, and depose their leaders. Another governmental program that is attracting those people to Europe is the welfare states. Stef discussed this at length on the podcast, and I commend him on this. But reforming (or, preferably, eliminating) the welfare state is the more humane solution to this problem, not shipping them back to a literal war zone or killing them if they refuse. That's what they're there for! They could have met that fate if they'd just stayed where they were. Bottom line, I don't seem to understand the whole issue, but I have some ideas. The best way I think to handle the problem (as far as anyone rational can influence the government) is: end the War on Terror, eliminate welfare and other unconstitutional benefits for non-citizens, and inform these refugees (or "illegal immigrants,"* or whatever you want to call them) that they are on their own. In a truly free area, there would be no honey to attract redistributionist people and all the land would be owned by individuals or organizations, who would be tasked with keeping tresspassers "off'n their propertah." As far as those who are already here, keep anyone you like off your property for any reason you like, but whomever anyone else allows on their land, or hires, or sells to is none of your goddamned business. (As least as far as government force is concerned.) By the way, Stef mentioned that the best thing for these refugees is to stay and fight where they are. All I have to say is, Anne Frank didn't. Sigmund Freud didn't. Albert Einstein didn't. The von Trapps didn't. And most importantly, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek didn't. They knew a sinking ship when they saw it and, like good and prolific rats, got while the gittin' was good. (Yes, I know these people aren't exactly modern intellectuals steeped in Western Civilization and classical liberalism, but their situation is similar.) I intend to do the same thing. Those people in the Middle East aren't exactly fighting an intellectual war. They're fighting the 3rd US Marine battalion- with guns, and drones, and Hellfire missiles, and tanks, and depleted uranium ordinance. please help me *I call them, "unauthorized movers," like someone going from Montana to Colorado, or Ontario to Alberta. What's the difference?

There is an Anti-Immigration protest near where I live(Waco,TX) tomorrow.I was thinking about counter protesting. I have an idea for a sign.A re-write of parts of "The New Colossus". "Give us your ignorant,your racist,your sheepled lard-asses yearning to believe they are free". That's all I have so far.The last line about the golden door would be a prison door reference.