Sweden Democrats shocked to find out their youth wing has been Islamized

Interesting article from Sputnik that discusses the consternation evidence among members of the Social Democrats at the news that their youth wing has been turning towards radical Islam. Among other actions, the youth wing has:

• called Islam a "universal solution against human suffering, diseases and problems existing today" 
• expressed homophobic and anti-Semitic sentiments
• substituted the traditional Internationale anthem played at a party conference with an Islamic song. 
• dismissed atheism as an "amoral idea"

The news story interviewed one of the former leaders of this youth division:

According to Carolina Pettersson, former district secretary of SSU Skåne, the "fundamentalist phalanx" has roots in Rosengård, Malmö's immigrant-heavy district. According to her, they came to power using aggressive methods and intimidation. Petterson blamed the rise of groups that don't share the party's ideology on a weakened labor movement with a higher tolerance for clans and ideological digressions.

Perhaps it is the translation, but this is a word salad. What do the following mean?

• 'weakened labor movement'
• 'higher tolerance for clans'
• 'ideological digressions'

So the traditional labor base of the left-leaning Sweden Democrats is being diminished in favor of Islamic activism. 

What about 'clans'? This seems to imply that large extended family/tribal units are collaborating to lock down political power.

If you have followed my posts about Germany, you'll know that Arab clans control the organized crime in German cities. Their power is so great that they openly mock German police.

So we have clans growing in power and influence, taking over mainstream political parties.

Sounds like quite a recipe for a stable, progressive society. 

New York Review of Books and Jian Ghomeshi

The left wing mobs have come for the editor of the New York Review of Books, which decided to publish a rambling article from disgraced CBC star Jian Ghomeshi, who had been accused by multiple women of severe sexual assault (including violence). 

Ghomeshi was known as a creep from his days as a student activist at York University. His odd behavior with women was the subject of much gossip in the Toronto entertainment scene, and numerous women spoke of being warned about spending time alone with him. 

The Persian Prince of the CBC was even accused of sexual harassment on the job, claims that were ultimately settled out of court (and for which Ghomeshi uttered a public apology). There is good evidence that the CBC knew about his habits, but they covered the matter up in order to keep one of their only stars.

Ghomeshi is the ultimate beta male, a weak chinned male feminist who took gender studies courses at university in order to ingratiate himself with women. Despite the public persona that exuded feminism at every turn, his true attitudes to women emerged when he had them at his disposal in private surroundings. 

The New York Review of Books published a mea culpa article by Ghomeshi, who had been acquitted of charges of sexual assault in a riveting criminal trial. This enraged the left wing enough for Ian Buruma, the NYRB editor, to be ousted from his job. 

As an act of penance, the magazine then followed up with a piece that collected letters from numerous concerned individuals. The Toronto Star notes that the NYRB may have suffered fairly lasting damage to its reputation, despite the firing of Buruma and the attempts to ameliorate the situation by including numerous rebuttals.

Judge Napolitano shows why the libertarian left is ruining their country

Although I'm generally a fan of Judge Napolitano on many issues, his latest essay on the 'migrant caravans' crossing Mexico is quite disappointing in its naivete. Like most of the left, he seems to believe that humans are interchangeable, and that millions of Africans and Mexicans can be transplanted into the USA successfully provided that they are willing to work and integrate.

Sadly, this is not the case. He's a classic example of how libertarians are breeding their own ideology into oblivion.

"Nationalism and its cousin nativism are dangerous attitudes that have come and gone almost cyclically throughout American history. They foster an arrogant aura about Americans who embrace them — we are more deserving than you because our ancestors got here before you or yours did — and they cause fear and hatred of foreign-born people."

Napolitano would be quite surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution seems to imply nativism. Just read the preamble ("secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"). Also:

• Japan, Pakistan, Israel (cough cough), China, Korea, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries are nativist in this sense. 
• It is not clear that these are 'dangerous' attitudes, given that Japan and Korea are the most functional, socially cohesive, safe and prosperous nations on earth.
• Why shouldn't the descendants of those who fought in the Revolutionary War (or WW1/WW2) have greater claim to being American?
• What evidence is there that nationalism causes fear and hatred? 

"They also lull one into the lazy mental habit of judging the moral worth of people not on the basis of their personal choices and fidelity to first principles but on the basis of their membership in groups marked by immutable characteristics of birth, such as people’s place of birth."

• The only 'immutable' characteristic listed is 'place of birth'. In Napolitano's world, there is no such thing as IQ, disease susceptibility (e.g,. Tay Sachs, sickle cell), infectious disease exposure, etc.
• Why do only 'immutable' characteristics count? What about partially mutable ones like homophobia, misogyny, or general cultural traits (e.g., honor-based norms of dispute resolution).

Like most commentators, Napolitano is unaware of the difference between judging individuals and judging populations. The law of large numbers implies that samples tend to take on the characteristics of the population they are drawn from as they get larger. We might not be able to judge a single Syrian, but we can certainly draw inferences about the sort of people that we will get when we import 50,000 of them.

Import 50,000 people from a low IQ country that suffers from high levels of birth defects due to inbreeding (e.g., Pakistan), and you get a horde of immigrants with low IQs and high levels of birth defects. Pakistanis in the UK (when they aren't raping young white children), are marrying their cousins.

"This habit rejects a founding American principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Our judge has apparently read a 'right to immigrate' into the Constitution. 

Furthermore, people are not created equal in the sense of possessing similar talents, proclivities, physical characteristics, or cultural norms. When considering immigration, these characteristics are of the utmost importance, which is why the US immigration system used to keep track of how immigrants from various countries performed.

"And natural law teaches that human rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and they adhere in everyone, not just Americans."

There is no natural right to migrate.

"I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. "

Travel and immigration are two very different things. One changes a society permanently.

"And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration — i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here."

Wait, so this is a division of powers issue now? That just pushes the issue to the state governments, and doesn't really address the issue of natural rights.

"people who want to work should be allowed in. "

Why? No reasons given?

Only an idiot believes that there is only a single issue in any given policy debate. As a judge, Napolitano should know about policy analysis, including such notions as 'minimal impairment'. Are there truly no other interests at stake? Here's a suggestion:

• the interests of existing citizens in determining who is eligible to become a member of their society
• the interests of workers in controlling the amount of foreign labor entering the market
• the interests of the federal government in controlling the yearly intake of new citizens. (Napolitano seems to forget that the children of these temporary non-naturalized workers are deemed US citizens).
• national security interests
• public health interests, particularly relating to the spread of communicable diseases
• the interests of women who will suffer sexual abuse at the hands of migrants from misogynistic cultures (e.g., the mass attacks in Cologne, or the massive child rape problem in the UK).
• the interests of homosexuals who will be on the receiving end of violence from homophobic migrants (e.g., the Pulse nightclub).

Immigrants change the culture of their new nation. This is particularly true of immigrants with high birth rates, such as Arabs, Somalis, Pakistanis, and Mexicans.

Many of these immigrants come from cultures that are tribal and honor-based. This leads to major problems when these people enter a culture based on dignity and the rule of law. Many others (e.g., Hindus) come from countries riddled with corruption.

Napolitano is naïve enough to believe in the 'magic dirt' theory: that any person transplanted to the USA can become American if they wish. He believes that people steeped in tribalism or collectivism are going to integrate into American society. At the same time he condemns 'nativism', he doesn't seem to have much concern for tribalism, identity politics and in-group preferences among the migrants.

He seems to be unaware of the large number of third world migrants engaged in fraud, such as the Somalis in Minnesota who are sending 10+ million USD a year back to Somali through the airports. This money was stolen from US taxpayers through phony child daycare schemes. Let's not even mention the refugees and immigrants who sign up for welfare benefits and then high-tail it back to their own countries.

"The Wall Street Journal have demonstrated indisputably that most of the work that immigrants will do is work most Americans eschew. "

Bull. First, the WSJ is biased and full of political hacks who believe in open borders. Second, the Center for Immigration Studies and other proper research institutes have challenged this claim.

"Their work not only benefits them but also produces family stability and increases wealth, which finds its way into the stream of commerce."

Family stability? In the USA? What's the Hispanic single parenthood rate?

Increases wealth? Has Napolitano never heard of remittances?

Notice the concepts here:

1. benefits to the migrants
2. family stability (presumably the migrant families)
3. increases in wealth (whose?)
4. the stream of commerce

Nowhere do we find any consideration of the impacts on Americans, including workers who are competing for these unskilled jobs. 

"We who call ourselves Americans are nearly all descended from immigrants."

Immigrants are those who move from one society to another. A person who arrives in a country with no infrastructure and who builds that infrastructure is a 'settler'.

Even if his claim were true, it does not follow that a country must always and forever welcome immigration. The fact that there were immigrants in the past does not imply that there cannot be quality control and quotas in the present.

"Yet when our forebears arrived here, they were met simply by prejudice and government indifference."

The early colonists were met by government indifference? Which government?

Sadly, Napolitano has revealed himself to be a charlatan on the subject of immigration. Not only is he completely incompetent at policy analysis, but he is dripping with contempt for the interests of current citizens and permanent residents.

It is interesting that Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell and Hoppe (all libertarians) do not agree with open borders. Mises was at pains to emphasize the importance of culture, for instance. Napolitano merely ignores culture altogether, as if it makes no difference.

A basic question for the Judge:

"Why do you think that a philosophy of liberty, property rights, and the rule of law will survive the mass immigration of people from cultures that do not believe in any of these?"

The Jewish Oligarchy in Honduras

With all the press about the migrant caravan headed to the USA from Honduras, it is curious that the media isn't interested in digging deeper into the reasons why people might be inclined to leave that country. Many of the interviewed convoy members admit to being economic migrants, unable to find work back in their home country.

Well, it turns out that desperately poor Honduras has a foreign Jewish oligarchy comprised of Sephardic Jewish families from the Middle East. Referred to as the 'Turks', they control 40+% of the Honduran economy, with a lockdown on key industries.

A translation of the above article is below, courtesy of this blog:

The Jewish families that run Honduras

Honduras, a country owned by five families

 

•  40% of the GNP is in the hands of a fistful of names of Jewish and Palestinian origin

•  Almost all of them contribute financially to the two major political parties.

•  A small number of families united before and after the coup

 

By Jacobo G. Garcia – Tegucigalpa

 

The only thing in common between the walls of the labyrinthine alleys of Tegucigalpa is that they are all covered in graffiti.

 

There are concrete walls, old colonial walls, electrified fences and walls with broken glass on top to deter assaults. Yet they are always painted with writings like ‘down with Gorilletti’, ‘cardinal coup leader’ or ‘Turks out of Honduras’.

Almost all signal the same thing. In a contest for the most hated, Micheletti, the Church and the ‘Turks’ would win over the people expelled from power on June 28th, getting more insult and paint than anybody else. Including the army.

 

Micheletti has stabbed , ‘Mel’, his old crony in the Liberal Party, in the back. The Church has accused Zelaya to be responsible for the current situation.

The ‘Turks’ are the oligarchy. A term uncommon in the first world, but appropriate for the third poorest country in the Americas, where it refers to a fistful of families tied together before and after the coup that ousted the president flirting with Hugo Chavez-like policies.

 

Even if everybody calls them ‘Turks’ they are actually families of Jewish origin coming from Arab countries in the 40s and 50s, away from the desert and the wars. They are the Rosenthals, the Facussé, the Larachs, the Nassers, the Kafies and the Goldsteins. Five surnames controlling the manufacturing industries, energy utilities, telecommunications, tourism, banks, finance, concrete makers and commerce, airports or the congress. Practically everything.

They are the kernel of that 3% of Hondurans controlling 40% of the GNP. They are the aristocrats in a country where 70% of the population are poor.

 

People like Jaime Rosenthal, presidential candidate in 4 elections and owner of banks, airports, breweries, soccer teams and communications media. He has invested in real estate, phone companies, and the meat exporting business, insurances and telecommunications. Or the Facussés, related with the Nassers, who, in the course of several decades, have divided their energies between business and politics. They are the tycoons of the textile industry in a country where most of brand name garments sold in the USA are made. They control also chemical and precious metals industries. These two families have produced many government officials and there is no decision in the country which is made without them.

 

Most of them couldn’t read, write or even speak Spanish when they arrived, but they grew out of the limelight, founding newspapers, exploiting mines, bringing electricity and telephones to the country. They intermarried, they sent their children to American colleges, and they ousted the traditional upper middle class of German and Spanish origin. After three generations they are still controlling the country not letting anybody join their powerful elite.

 

Powerful among the powerful

 

They are families like the Atalas, owner of Banco Fichosa or the Kafies, “powerful among the powerful”, according to the book ‘Honduras: poderes facticos and poder politico coordinado’ written by Victor Meza. It is the most influential family in the country and one of the biggest in Central America thanks to its investments in banks, the food industry, the construction business and its many government contracts. “Contracts rarely lost” – it is written in that book. Or the Canahuati, a most influential family not only because it controls two newspapers, but also because it owns bottling industries, pharma industries and fast food restaurants like KFC and Pizza Hut.

 

Almost all of them contribute financially to the two parties; the US ambassador, Hugo Llorens conferred with them only a few hours after Zelaya appeared in pajamas in Costa Rica. He was so angered and cried so much that more than one of them got offended, according to what was explained to elmundo.es/América by a person who was there. For the first time the US was not informed of a coup in Honduras beforehand.

 

It’s because of this that the first repression measures of the Obama administration were to leave them without visas. They are behind the decision to use the elections as a band aid to cover the wound of chavism. The pessimists continue to believe that the hemorrhage is still bleeding.

Almost half of German kids under 7 are migrants

We find this discussion in the German Zeitung (newspaper) Die Welt:

"According to the Federal Statistical Office, 42 percent of those under the age of six already have a migration background in West Germany."

In 15 years time, this means that around 42% of 16-21 year olds will be of migrant background.

You know, the prime years for young males rife with hormones to run amok causing crime, engaging in sexual assault, etc.

If Germany is anything like Sweden, the sex ratio in that age cohort is also heavily male. (Who would have thought that importing people from cultures that practice sex-selective abortion would lead to gender imbalances?)

So, a massive number of young males from predatory and tribal cultures. What could possibly go wrong?

Good news from knife-crazed London

According to the witless lefties at the Guardian, there is a silver lining in the exponential increase in gun and knife crime - namely, new research that is improving the probability of surviving serious stab wounds.

The Guardian reports that new research programs have "reduced mortality among the most critically injured from 50% to 30%."

Fantastic news. It's almost as if importing legions of violent third world savages really does have an upside.

Notice that stabbings are so common that hospitals are overstretched:

"Trauma surgeons recently warned that some hospitals were running low on blood supplies because of the “epidemic” of people being stabbed and that “spikes” of violence often coincided with the end of the school day."

I wonder what could have possibly changed in the last few decades to cause such a massive increase in knife crime (as well as gun crime, orchestrated gang rapes of children, etc).

French news video on French citizens fleeing to Hungary

An interesting short (20 minute) video that follows a number of French citizens who have relocated to Hungary in order to have a semblance of a European life.

Of course, FranceInfo has to mock French citizens who no longer view France as European:

"Il y a ceux qui s’exilent, et il y a ceux qui luttent de l’intérieur contre ce qu’ils appellent 'l’islamisation de la France'."

Yes, because the "Islamization of France" is a mere figment of the imagination. France long ago outlawed the collection of statistics on ethnicity and national origin, which conveniently hides the growth of the foreign population within the country.

However, various proxy metrics have been used to estimate foreign birth rates, including the number of infants checked for sickle cell anemia. (Predictably, the French government banned the collection of those statistics as well, once it discovered that people were using them to estimate the growth of the non-ethnic French population).

A Chinese government official let rip a punishing salvo when asked about China's detention of Muslims. According to the execrable (and anti-indigenous) Guardian newspaper,  Li Xiaojun, the director for publicity at the Bureau of Human Rights Affairs of the State Council Information Office, said the following:

“What China is doing is to establish professional training centres – educational centres. If you do not say it’s the best way, maybe it’s the necessary way to deal with Islamic or religious extremism, because the west has failed in doing so. Look at Belgium, look at Paris, look at some other European countries. You have failed.”

Let's repeat. An official Chinese government official just told Europeans that their policies are a complete failure.

He was too kind to point out that extremism is not the only issue, but rather marching in millions of people from primitive, misogynistic, and tribal cultures is not a way to sustain European civilization.

Asians are far less P.C. than western whites, who they mock with the derogatory term baizou. 

Note also that after massive protests and a 700,000+ person petition, the South Korean government refused to grant refugee status to Arabs from Yemen.

All of this provides evidence that East Asians are indeed the smartest people on the planet. 

Elizabeth Warren is less aboriginal than most white North Americans

So Elizabeth Warren decided to end the controversy about her 'aboriginal' (Cherokee) heritage by having a Stanford geneticist evaluate a DNA sample. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that she is between 1/512th and 1/1024th aboriginal, which is less than the 1.6% percent found in most North American whites.

She's roundly being mocked online, and the Cherokee themselves are not happy:

Chuck Hoskin of the Cherokee Nation

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. "Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

Even worse, it turns out that the reference samples used to prove her tiny shred of 'aboriginal' ancestry are not actually from the Cherokee. Even worse, they aren't from any North American indigenous group. Instead, geneticist Carlos Bustamante used samples from Peru, Mexico and Colombia.

[As with the Canadian First Nations, the Indian tribes in the USA typically advise their members not to give their data to outside researchers. This means that there is a dearth of data available on their populations.]

It appears that Warren was trying to clear up the controversy in order to clear her name for a presidential run in 2020. Unfortunately, it seems to have backfired in spectacular fashion.