Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is big business

From a story on the Social Contract website about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society ("HIAS"):

"According to its 2017 IRS records, the group grossed $45,910,121, and shelled out a whopping $20,686,120 in salaries and benefits for HIAS employees..... Mark Hetfield is pulling down a salary package worth $336,323 running this charity, Rita Silverman, in charge of grass roots organizing, earns $299,335 in pay and benefits, and Farhan Irshad, the Chief Operating Officer, collects $198,450 in wages plus $51,842 in benefits"

Sounds like quite the altruistic bunch at the top of HIAS.

Note: Remind me to look up whether the Catholic and Protestant immigration groups are any different.

"Investigative reporter Jim Simpson (see page 24) notes that HIAS has received $186 million from the U.S. Treasury in the last ten years."

18.6 million USD a year in taxpayer contributions.

"In 2017, Uncle Sam donated $24,493,763 in taxpayer dollars to the organization. Curiously, last year the contributions from the public added up to $17,361,702 — underwriting just 80 percent of the group’s payroll — making the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society employees government welfare recipients."

French press reports that harassment of women in immigrant enclaves is getting rapidly worse

New article from LeParisien discussing the situation with sexual harassment in immigrant heavy areas of Paris.

In May 2017, a group of residents of the Chapelle-Pajol district wrote a petition, which quickly became viral, entitled "Women, an endangered species at the heart of Paris ".

Said one woman:

"The situation has worsened... since these men are more and more numerous. Like many others, I gave up taking the metro to La Chapelle, to cross the square ... Even at a running pace. Between sexist or gritty remarks, rustling, unpleasant looks and fear of aggression, I capitulated....The police are more present, it's true, but the fights are also more and more numerous and violent."

Numerous French media outlets have reported that women are disappearing from the nightlife of Paris. They do not go out to cafes or restaurants in the evening. Many stay at home for fear of being attacked.

I wonder what could have changed in the last few decades. 

Radically transform Canadian politics to eliminate hate speech

An odd essay on the Toronto Star website by Les Scheininger discusses racism and extremism. In discussing his Jewish father, he remarks:

"He witnessed and endured the state-sanctioned racism which Jews faced daily in Eastern Europe."

What state-sanctioned racism? I think the time period in question is 1930-1939. 

• Perhaps he is talking about Poland? What state sanctioned racism was there in Poland? Jews were massively over-represented in the merchant classes and in the more affluent professions. They were, as in Prussia, the bulk of international merchants and bankers. Is he speaking of quotas in Universities?
• Is he talking about the Soviet Union? Probably not, as it appears the family fled TO Russia and not away from it. The Cossack pogroms against the Jews in Russia are examples of anti-Jewish violence, but they cannot be what he means.
• Anti-Jewish racism in the Soviet Union is dubious during this time period. In fact, anti-semitism was made into a crime by the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks. Stalin kept that policy, although he attempted to reduce Jewish influence within the government.

The whole article is rather light on concrete examples, and heavy on hand-waving.

"In the summer of 1941, as the German army was approaching, my father gathered family members together and with them, my parents and older brother, who was 3 at the time, escaped to Russia and found themselves in Uzbekistan."

The Soviet government was transferring large numbers of Jews from areas east of Germany (e.g., Poland) into its interior at the time, so this makes sense.

"My father was immediately torn from his family and taken to a labour camp in Siberia. He toiled, as did so many others, in indescribable conditions. He never had the loving pleasure of seeing and holding his daughter, who was born shortly after he was taken away and who did not survive through infancy."

Why was he taken away exactly? Why would a Jewish refugee be placed in a gulag?

Given that tens of millions of Christians and Muslims died in a gulag system that (according to Solzehnitsyn) was largely run by Jewish commandants, I'm not sure why we are supposed to believe that the gulags were particularly awful to Jews.

Note also: "he toiled, as did so many others". This sleight-of-hand seems to be designed to convince us that the gulags were full of Jews. In fact, the majority of gulag inmates were Christians. 

"When the war ended, Jews began searching for their loved ones, and with the help of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Service...my father was among the fortunate ones reunited with their families. HIAS facilitated housing in a displaced persons’ camp in Steyr, Austria, where I was born."

So because he is grateful to HIAS, we should all be grateful to HIAS.

"my father maintained, articulated and imparted to my brother and me a fundamental philosophy that Jews should be able to live in liberty and safety anywhere on this planet, and not be restricted — as they had been for centuries — by discriminatory state decree, despots and bigots to ghettos or outlying communities."

A few questions:

• why do Jews claim a right to be able to live in Japan or China without restriction?
• do indigenous people have no right to be able to exclude foreign populations?

I completely disagree with this.

• Jews might be interested in open borders, but it does follow that other people have to embrace them on that basis.
• Why is it racist and bigoted to refuse Jews access to a country, but Arabs born in Palestine cannot return and live in Israel?

This is redolent of Hillaire Belloc's observation about Jewish attitudes to immigration:

"He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship in his own nation."

The remark about ghettos is odd. The Jewish population in Poland lived in isolation from their Christian neighbours voluntarily. They had zero interest in interacting or mixing with the Poles and Belorussians, whom they regarded as stupid and inferior. (A common epithet was 'pig' or 'goy'). Intermarriage was punished heavily. Any perusal of books on Jewish life in Poland would confirm this. In contrast, the Jewish population in Germany had a significant proportion that was integrating with the rest of German society.

"To him and many others, who have endured adversity and hatred in many areas of the world, Canada and the United States represented the ideal of what they desired for their families and descendants."

Odd that there is no mention of the Zionist movement, which was a major impetus in the relocation of Jews in Russia to Palestine.

"We know that that there is no panacea. There will always be, among us, a segment of society that harbours hatred against others who they view to be different." 

Indeed, like the > 50% of Israeli Jews who would like to expel the Arab population of Israel. Or the Chabad Lubavitchers, who believe that gentiles are inferior. No mention of either of those.

"We now need effective, strong political leadership and the will to move beyond words to deliver the message that hate-mongering will no longer be tolerated."

Well, you could have started with the Imam in downtown Toronto who was caught preaching Jew-hatred. I guess he wasn't important enough.

"we require pressure from our communal leaders to call for prosecutions and for our political leaders to direct our law enforcement officers to investigate, lay appropriate charges against, and prosecute those charged"

Why should 'communal leaders' have any say in law enforcement matters? For that reason, why should political leaders be able to direct law enforcement? The separation of powers has proven to be somewhat useful in allowing the development of societies that at least have a semblance of the rule of law.

"The present dangers are so much greater than in the past."

Apparently it is even worse than 1939 these days.

"In years before, those charged with these offences were viewed as fringe personalities having little influence on most of us"

David Ahenekaw comes to mind, as does Ernst Zundel. It is fair to say that these are not mainstream individuals with any great media exposure.

"...but causing sufficient concern that they not be viewed as role models, so they were charged criminally. Today, these types of individuals are prominent through social media, are running for office and in some cases being elected internationally."

Eastern Europeans (and Koreans) are rejecting mass immigration, and they are electing politicians who will represent their views (e.g., Victor Orban). None of them are as xenophobic or ethnocentric as the typical Israeli politician.

"attention must be given to the political and government arenas and those who have influence within. It is often forgotten that our elected leaders have real responsibilities, not only to develop policies and pass legislation, but to be role models demonstrating values and principles."

The role of political leaders in a representative democracy is to govern with the consent of the electorate. It is not to be 'role models' in demonstrating values and principles. It makes one wonder what tradition this fellow came out of, since his view of politics is at odds with typical western notions of liberal democracy.

" It is now necessary for political parties to develop effective processes to ensure individuals who seek to be nominated and elected as representatives of a party and receive its endorsement truly believe in the party’s policies, values and philosophy, and promote them"

So goodbye to representative government and the preferences of constituents in a given riding.  How does one reconcile this with either representative democracy or an interest in 'diversity' and 'inclusion'?

"Canada would be in a unique position with its values, history and experience to provide global leadership to combat expressions of bigotry and racism, assuming the further appropriate steps, as noted, are also taken."

Why is Canada in a 'unique position'? France, Sweden and other countries are also experimenting with mass immigration.

" It is clear that the scourge of neo-nationalistic hatred is an international problem requiring co-ordination and co-operation among countries."

Great, let's start talking about Israel. How many Palestinian women and children have been killed by Israel in the last few years? Shhh, they don't count.

"We no longer have borders, let alone walls, when it comes to communications. "

But Israel has a physical wall.

"Canada has now established its credentials of being ahead of the pack on a number of new, progressive and creative movements and initiatives."

Not really. The UK is far ahead of Canada when it comes to criminalizing speech, and we can see how that is working out. Left wing MPs estimate that up to a MILLION English girls have been gang raped by Muslim rape gangs, who have been aided by Police and Social Workers who would rather not be called 'racist'.

So here we have a person writing an article that fails to provide key details or data of any sort. On the basis of hand waving, they are urging major changes to our political system, including:

• complete party discipline, whereby MPs are not allowed to deviate from the party line
• the ability of the government to direct law enforcement
• the abdication of any form of representative democracy

The shaky stories about the gulags are there for emotional impact, and the double standard of Jews maintaining a violent ethno-state in the Middle East is nicely swept under the rug.

Interesting post over at Euro Canadian that accurately diagnoses some of the problems with European women:

"There was a time that I thought your sex had a primary purpose. But then the news came out that Canada's Total Fertility Rate was 1.5 in 2017, 0.6 below replacement level. That is, for every set of 1000 Canadian women, there are 1,492 births. So obviously nature made a mistake. You aren't here to help perpetuate our species after all. You are not here to keep our tribe alive. No, instead your job is to aid rival tribes, to favour out-groups, to form an alliance with The Other, to push for open borders, to support and encourage migrants and refugee claimants to settle here, undercut white males and let imported women do the job that you were supposed to do. Thanks to your careerism, the political class now has an ironclad excuse to increase immigration intakes to keep population level up and our people down. In effect, we have outsourced child-bearing and rearing to third world migrants from failed states whom we expect to perpetuate our civilization and culture despite having little connection to it."

Let's pull that apart:

• European women no longer have children. 
• European women lack in-group preference.
• European women actively seek to import people from tribal societies into their territories.
• European women undercut males of their own ethnic group.
• European women have outsourced reproduction to third world immigrants.

There is merit to each and every one of these claims. For instance, the European female's lack of interest in motherhood is most pronounced in Germany, where a staggering number of ethnic German women have no intention of reproducing.

These left wing women will be in for a shock when they inevitably become a minority in their own ethnic homelands. They are about to discover the following truth:

"Just because you have abandoned tribalism, it doesn't mean that other groups think the same way." 

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?"