E Pluribus Unum: An Immigrant’s Plea to America

As an immigrant to America, I have a lot to be grateful for. I will eternally express my gratitude to this nation for accepting me and giving me the life that I am living now. Millions of other immigrants can say the same. They have been able to come from all parts of the world and fulfill their dreams. This sentiment has been used to justify multiculturalism. We are repeatedly told that America is “a nation of immigrants.” However, that is not what America is. America was always meant to be an outpost of Europe, based on Western European traditions and English common law. As one would expect, immigrants who came to America were mostly from Europe. The immigration policy of the United States after 1965 has allowed for people from vastly different and even antithetical cultures to enter our country by the millions. Our porous border with Mexico has allowed for millions more from a backwards culture to enter America. As I said in my very first post, I want to preserve the America that my family came to enjoy. I do not want to see the character of the United States to change as a result of different cultures being allowed in. I do not want my parents’ sacrifice to be in vain. In order to preserve our country, we must do away with this notion that America is “a nation of immigrants” and return to our European roots.

First, a little personal history. I moved to America when I was 11 months old. I was born in Hyderabad, India. My parents were born and raised in that city. My father married my mother and got a job in Cleveland. He sent for me and my mother in 1994. We later moved to Chicago, where I have lived since 1997. My parents made the journey from India and chose to become Americans.

In one generation, my father went from a modest living in India to an upper middle class life here in America. No other country could have offered him that opportunity. America is truly a beacon of hope for all the ambitious, risk-taking people in the world who want to make an name for themselves.

What I admire the most about this country is that we all have the ability to create our own path in life. The right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is what allows me to forge my own path. This country was the first in human history to put those words on paper. I am only one of millions and millions of immigrants who have benefitted from that profound declaration of human rights.

While I say all of this with pride, I realize that America is not actually “a nation of immigrants.” It is a creation of British and Dutch settlers. There was no America that existed before they came. Therefore, they were not immigrants. North America was an unnamed continent filled with warring tribes when they arrived. Moreover, the land had been tragically emptied of native inhabitants due to disease. When the English and Dutch arrived, they brought with them Protestantism, European culture and English common law. Those settlers designed America around those values. When America declared independence, the colonists used their common heritage to unite themselves to fight a war.

E pluribus unum was the motto suggested by the committee Congress appointed on July 4, 1776 to design “a seal for the United States of America.” The motto’s purpose is to express the theme of a seal’s imagery – especially that of the shield. That original committee also submitted a sketch of a seal. The center section of the shield had six symbols for “the Countries from which these States have been peopled”: the rose (England), thistle (Scotland), harp (Ireland), fleur-de-lis (France), lion (Holland), and an imperial eagle (Germany). Notice how all the countries that “peopled” the states were Northern and Western European. The United States was meant to be an extension of Europe. America’s legal system was founded in accordance with English common law. Although the original seal was not approved, their motto was. Pluribus Unum alludes to the union between the states and the federal government. It is not an endorsement of multiculturalism. The lie of the United States being “a nation of immigrants” was created to make the new immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries feel more comfortable. America was built by a people with a largely common ancestry and religion. John Jay wrote favorably about America’s common ancestry in Federalist No. 2. He was delighted that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Jay saw the lack of diversity in America as a literal blessing. America, since its inception, expected its immigrants to conform to its English and Protestant roots so that her traditions can be preserved.

Benjamin Franklin wrote about this at length in a private letter to Peter Collinson in May of 1753. He was alarmed by the large number of German immigrants who were coming into Pennsylvania. Franklin observed how “not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.” Their culture was completely different to the English and Dutch who had originally settled in the colony. “They are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government,” and were submissive to the civil government since they were still a minority. Franklin was also fearful of the lack of assimilation on the part of the German immigrants. “Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German.” As Germans from an alien culture and language moved into the colonies, they did not choose to assimilate, but rather set up a parallel society that was slowly displacing the original English settlers. Franklin warned that “in short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you (Collinson) very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.” He “prayed God long to preserve to Great Britain the English Laws, Manners, Liberties and Religion” in the face of the waves of German immigration. Franklin’s opposition to the importation of large numbers of Germans into the colonies is really a refutation of multiculturalism.

The English and German cultures did not coexist, but ended up conflicting with each other. They did not live harmoniously as the multiculturalists would theorize. “The French who watch all advantages, are now themselves making a German settlement back of us in the Ilinoes Country, and by means of those Germans they may in time come to an understanding with ours, and indeed in the last war our Germans shewed a general disposition that seems to bode us no good.” The Germans showed an in-group preference for themselves rather than all members of the colony. They would not side with the English in a conflict “except a very few in proportion to their numbers.” The Germans’ loyalty lied with their fellow Germans rather than their English neighbors.

I use Franklin’s letter to demonstrate how immigration, when uncontrolled, can lead to conflict and displacement of the native population. This is especially true when the immigrants come from an alien or antithetical culture. The United States, since 1965 has changed its immigration policy from primarily bringing in white Europeans to bringing in people from the third world. Ann Coulter does a great job of showing the demographic shift that has occurred in her book Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Coulter says that “even in 1990, half the American population could trace its roots back to the white and black populace in 1790.” Until Ted Kennedy’s immigration bill, America was never less than 99% white Western European and West African black. African Americans are every bit a part of Anglo-Saxon America as the Anglo-Saxons themselves. Before 1965, America was a biracial country which followed European traditions.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed the demographics of this country enormously. The bill eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration. It was the first time in US history that immigration from the Western hemisphere was limited. According to the Pew Research Center, in 1960, America was 85% white, 11% black, 3.5% hispanic and 0.6% Asian. By 2011, those numbers had changed to 63% white, 12% black, 17% hispanic and 5% asian. By the year 2050, if current trends continue, there will be no majority ethnic group in America. Clearly, the shift in immigration policy has led to a huge increase in the hispanic and asian populations in America. Most noticeably, the percentage of the population that whites make up has dropped precipitously. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the ten largest U.S. immigrant groups in 1960 came from: Poland, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Mexico. In 2014, only Mexico remained in the top ten. The new list was: Philippines, Vietnam, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Korea and Mexico.

The reason such a shift in demographics was orchestrated was because the Democrat party wanted a stream of reliable voters to enter the country. Over the last few decades, a majority of whites have never voted from the Democrats in a presidential election. The Democrats understood that if whites continued to make up 85% of the population, they would be at a serious disadvantage in elections in the future. Ted Kennedy came to their rescue with his immigration bill to import voters from the third world who are more likely to vote for leftist policies. For example, according to the 2010 National Annenberg Election Survey, 67% of hispanic immigrants and 59% of asian immigrants favor government health insurance. This is compared to only 45% of native born Americans. According to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 63% of hispanic immigrants and 64% of asian immigrants support Affirmative Action. Only 35% of native born Americans favor it. With regards to Obamacare, 69% of all immigrants supported it.

If the Democrats continue to succeed, their policies will divide the country along racial and cultural lines, much like Pennsylvania was becoming divided during Benjamin Franklin’s time. The United States will eventually end up with various ethnic groups squabbling with each other over what the government can offer them. This is the “precarious” situation that Franklin described. We will lose our national identity and face a future where Western values are diluted away. To avoid this, I think we should first deport all of the illegal immigrants who are currently in America. We should then bring in immigrants who are going to be productive members of our society and shift immigration away from the third world.

This is not to say that I oppose people from the third world coming in all together. I have the same attitude as Benjamin Franklin, who did not believe in “refusing entirely to admit [germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled.” The third world immigrants would be analogous to the germans in this case. I think multiculturalism can only work if we bring people from different cultures into the country in small numbers and distribute them finely across the nation. We should also require them to assimilate to the American way of life. If we do that, the values that this nation was built upon will not change, and neither will the demographics.

How would any other ethnic group feel if they became a minority in their own country? Would the Japanese tolerate becoming a minority in Japan? How about hispanics in Mexico? What about the Indians in India? They would all feel that their way of life is being threatened by immigrants. Why is it only majority white nations that are asked to add more racial diversity to their population? We as Americans need to start showing the same survival instinct that other countries would show in the face of a demographic and cultural threat. It is not racist or xenophobic to want to preserve your country’s identity and culture. In fact, it is a responsible thing for us to do as it would minimize internal conflict and secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity.

In order for us to avoid tribal conflict in the future, we must do away with this notion of America being “a nation of immigrants.” History has shown that multiculturalism has not resulted in what its proponents have promised us. We need to get back in touch with our European roots and heritage if we are to “preserve those invaluable treasures,” as Franklin put it. Although I am not of European descent myself, I admire Western Civilization. It is the only true hope for mankind, which is why it must be protected.


Single Motherhood: The Single Biggest Curse on Society

Over the past 50 years, we have seen an explosion in single motherhood in America. According to the Brookings Institute, in 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. Those percentages have increased dramatically. Data from the CDC indicates that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. In a study tracking the first wave of millennials to become parents, a team from Johns Hopkins University recently found that 64 percent of mothers gave birth at least once out of wedlock. Almost one-half had all of their children without ever exchanging vows. Single motherhood has tragically become the norm for the millennial generation.

The media has adjusted to this new reality and has sown the seeds of social acceptance for single motherhood. We have been shown in movies, TV shows, and commercials examples of single mothers being superheroes who simultaneously raise their children and advance their careers. The reaction to the 2014 film Boyhood is perhaps the best example of this. The reviewers fawned over the female lead Patricia Arquette’s portrayal of the divorced single mother who in the words of one reviewer is a “superhero,” who raises her children while getting an education and eventually a professional job.

When I watched the film, I did not see a superhero. What I saw was a selfish and impulsive woman who consistently put her own needs above her children, very much to their detriment. In the course of the film, we see her move her children from one place to another, marry and divorce two abusive alcoholics and consistently berate her children whenever they assert their own needs. Her daughter complained to her mother on two occasions in the film. The first time they moved after her mother decided to continue her education. She complained about leaving the neighborhood, her friends and her belongings. The second was when she was dropped off at school right after they left the house of one of the abusive alcoholics she married. She yelled at her mother for not allowing her to pack anything and leaving them temporarily homeless. Her mother’s response on both occasions was for her to “cut her horseshit attitude” and deal with it. Her mother’s needs always came before hers. This is actually a good portrayal of what many single mothers do in real life. In this post, I plan to demolish this image of the single mother and speak the truth about the damage they do to their children. I will also speak about how the welfare state and the Democrat party are destroying the nuclear family in our country.

To give you some context, I believe that the fundamental problem with single motherhood is that the costs and risks of being a single mother have decreased tremendously over the last 50 years. This is due to the welfare state that was put in place in 1965. The late Phyllis Schlafly said:

“The wrong-headed welfare system started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and his proclaimed war against poverty. The system should have been called the war against marriage. LBJ’s Great Society set up a grossly immoral system whereby millions of people were taught that they had an “entitlement” to pick the pockets of law-abiding, taxpaying families if they met two conditions: they didn’t work, and they were not married to someone who did work. This destroyed the work ethic and subsidized illegitimacy by giving single moms money and scores of benefits such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, utilities, WIC, and commodities.”

Before the welfare state, the consequences for the family were very dire if one of its daughters got pregnant. Before abortion and birth control, the daughter would be sent away during her pregnancy and she would then give the child up for adoption after it was born. Everyone in the community would know what had happened, and the family would be humiliated in the process. As a result, their daughter’s marriageability would be significantly diminished. The other option was to have the father marry their daughter, which is also not ideal since he is not likely to be a quality man. As grandparents, you would also have to bear much of the cost of raising the child. Since these negative outcomes accrued to individuals instead of the collective, individuals got heavily involved in managing sexuality. This is why sex only after marriage became a social norm.

With the advent of the welfare state, birth control and abortions, the risk that female sexuality poses has severely diminished. Now, women can socialize the cost of having a child out of wedlock by receiving welfare benefits. The black community has suffered the most from this. As the economist Walter E. Williams once said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do, and that is to destroy the black family.” The welfare state has given women free range to make bad decisions, which they must be held accountable for.

The single mothers who are on welfare are not victims who were put in a bad situation. They put themselves in a terrible situation when they chose to have a child and not marry the father. Legally, women have full control over sex and giving birth. They are the gatekeepers of sex, and must give consent in order for sexual intercourse to be legal. Women also have many more options for birth control than men do. The only option men have is condoms, and women can see if their partners are wearing one. If a woman gets pregnant, it is on her. The laws in this country also leave the decision over having an abortion entirely to the mother of the child. Planned Parenthood tells us that “politicians should not be involved in a woman’s personal medical decisions.” If it is a personal decision, then the woman should take personal responsibility if she chooses to have an abortion or not. If she chooses to give birth to the child, she is entirely responsible for that decision. Therefore, a single mother is the only person who is responsible for her lot in life because she made the decision to have unprotected sex and give birth to her child out of wedlock. To ameliorate the negative effects of these irresponsible decisions, single mothers have the option of giving their children up for adoption.

Single mothers who choose to keep their children are doing them a great disservice. In fact, having a child when you don’t have the means to provide for the child is abusive. Statistically, their children are worse off if they stay with them than if they are given up for adoption. Here are some statistics that show how single motherhood negatively affects children:

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26
  • Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)
  • 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
  • 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
  • 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows for all God’s Children]

These statistics show that objectively, a child is better off with a married couple than in a fatherless home. A single woman who chooses to keep her child is making a narcissistic decision, much to the detriment of her child. She is deliberately making her child’s life worse by denying him or her the opportunity to grow up with a loving couple. Her child will never know what it means to have a loving father. If her child is a boy, he will not have a man to teach him how to be a man when he grows up. It is also likely that her children will be exposed to a succession of low quality men in their lives if their mother continues to date. No man of quality would want to take care of another man’s child.

This is why in the past, women would do everything they can to avoid becoming single mothers because she would not be able to provide for herself and her children. Today, the welfare state provides them with the resources that a man would give them. Single mothers effectively marry the state and depend on it for their sustenance. Phyllis Schlafly also said that “when husband-breadwinner is eliminated, single moms look to Big Brother Government as provider. Democrats are glad to claim credit for facilitating the taxpayer subsidies.” According to the Washington Post, in 2008, 74% of single mothers voted for Obama. He went on to win 75% of single mothers in 2012. Obama overperformed across all racial demographics of single mothers as well. Among white voters, Obama lost to Romney 59 percent to 39 percent. But among white single mothers, Obama bested Romney 56 percent to 43 percent. It seems that Schlafly was right when Democrats pander to single mothers through offering them welfare benefits. Schlafly mentioned that “the Democratic Congress repealed the essence of Republican welfare reform [in 2009] by providing bonuses to states that increase their spending on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Single moms make up 90% of TANF recipients.” The expansion of the welfare state is entirely dependent on the expansion of single motherhood.

If the Democrats really had compassion for women and children, they would not subsidize single mothers with our tax dollars. As I have already mentioned, having a child out of wedlock is the wrong thing to do, and subsidizing their irresponsibility will only make it more widespread. The only thing the Democrats care about is padding their voting base. Unfortunately, single mothers are a growing demographic. The Democrats want to see that trend continue. They do not believe in empowering women and making them independent. The Democrats want them to be barefoot and pregnant so that they can be dependent on the Democrat party. Their rewards for voting Democrat in each election cycle are tiny food pellets in the form of welfare that are just enough to get them to come back and vote again in the next election. Electorally, this is a very successful strategy. Only look at Milwaukee, which has been under uninterrupted Democratic control for the last 108 years. The out of wedlock birth rate among blacks in Milwaukee is 86%. Among whites in the city, it is 29%. How much more time does the Democrat party need to sort out the mess in Milwaukee? Another century? Perhaps they are not the ones who hold the interests of blacks and women at heart.

In conclusion, single mothers are doing a great deal of harm to their children and to the country through their irresponsible decisions. The media and hollywood have worked tirelessly to foster social acceptance for single mothers. The expansion and subsidization of single motherhood has expanded the dependent class in our country, to the benefit of the Democrat party and the detriment of blacks and women. I believe that the problems of crime, poverty, and excessive government spending can be solved if we choose to stop providing welfare to single mothers. I do not think that we should cut off those mothers who are already receiving benefits, but rather stop giving benefits to new single mothers in the future. If we were to do so, we would see a resurgence of the nuclear family, especially amongst blacks. Our government will also be able to save money but spending as much on welfare. Children will also be more productive as a result of being raised in two-parent households, decreasing the need for social welfare and other government programs targeted at the poor. Our country would be radically transformed if we were to make this small policy adjustment. Unfortunately, there is no political will on the part of either party to deny single mothers welfare benefits. I fear that the only solution to this problem will come when the government runs out of money. Women will no longer be able to rely on the government to provide for them when they have an illegitimate child. When that happens, women will be forced to become responsible in matters of sexuality and in choosing a suitable partner. I can only hope that our attitudes toward single motherhood will change before such a crisis befalls our country.



The Syrian Migrant Crisis: A Demographic Disaster

We in the West are in the process of bankrolling a full-scale invasion that is poised to destroy Europe as we know it. The migrant crisis is perhaps the largest existential threat to Western Civilization since the fall of Rome.  Europe, shockingly, does not have the heart to say no to the migrants that are threatening to destroy their civilization. In fact, it is financially subsidizing their arrival by providing transportation and granting access to their generous welfare states. This is because Europe is ruled by its women and their emotionalism. This kindness has led to an existential threat that extends to all of European civilization because the EU allows free movement of the migrants to other European nations (except for England once they finalize their exit). It can only be stopped if we embrace traditional masculine values once again. It is the men in Europe who will have to say no to this invasion, since women by in large support the parties that are in favor of allowing migrants into their countries. Men are the ones who have to rediscover their protective instincts to save their civilization. Unfortunately, feminists have been busy destroying any semblance of masculinity in our culture for the last 50 years.

When I talk about feminism, I am talking about the modern feminism that has infected universities today. Men are no longer appreciated in our culture as a result of the feminist ideology. They are repeatedly told, unjustly, that they are patriarchs who promote a rape culture. Feminists’ favorite targets for this vitriol are white males. White men in particular are attacked for their white male privilege and are blamed for colonialism, sexism, racism and every other ill in the world. This criticism is particularly powerful in Europe, where men are having this message beaten into them ad nauseum. In addition to be attacked for their supposed privilege, men are also told that they are not necessary when it comes to raising a child. They are no longer viewed as the protectors of the family or even as providers. This is reflected in the dramatic increase in single motherhood in Western nations.

Modern feminism is largely a product of the rise in single motherhood that the West has seen over the last four decades. In the EU, single parents constitute 19% of all households with children in the EU. Single mothers make up 85% of them. Since single motherhood became so ubiquitous, many men in Europe have been raised by women. This is also due to the high divorce rates in the West. If they were not raised by a single woman, they grew up in a largely feminized culture that worships single mothers. They therefore do not act like men. Many of them were brought up by women who were a part of the 1968 movement and raised their sons to be like women. Danish journalist Iben Thranholm has highlighted this in one of op-eds. She says, “The average modern Western male has been feminized, with no knowledge or habit of manly virtues like courage, resolve, self-sacrifice, justice, temperance, self-reliance, self-discipline and honour. He has no sense of true expression of manliness.” Feminism despises these traditional male virtues and any expression of manliness. In fact, feminists call an expression of those virtues “toxic masculinity.” Sadly, the men in Europe do not have the will to say no and close the door to the migrants that are invading their countries. Instead, they along with their politicians are trying to be all inclusive and act like mothers to the migrants. The result is that the women in Europe are now left defenseless in the face of a dominant male culture brought in by the migrants.

The fallacy that feminists have fallen into is that by breeding masculinity out of their own culture, they will remove violence and danger from their societies. The downside to this is that when danger presents itself, there will be no masculine strength in the culture to fight back. This has proven to be right in light of the sexual assaults that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. The capacity to commit violence is inherent in men. However, it is violence committed on the part of decent men that stops evil men from doing harm. It is unfortunate that there were no men to protect those women from the gangs of migrants who had organized an effort to rape women that night.

Biologically, men exist to protect women. It is their responsibility to defend their civilization. In any species of animals on Earth, it is always the males that protect the tribe. Men have therefore evolved to perceive threats to a much better degree than women. In order to get men to perform their biological role, they need to be given an incentive to protect their civilization. This has traditionally been done by having them fight for their wives and children when they are threatened. Europe, for centuries, has followed this norm up until the last 50 years. Unfortunately, thanks to feminism, men no longer have anything left to defend. Western women have become so unappealing that the men have no incentive to protect them anymore. In Suzanne Venker’s article The War on Men, she says that “women aren’t women anymore.” Women have been raise to think that men are the enemy and have created a “women good/men bad dynamic” that has destroyed gender relations. The media has also contributed heavily to this, with movies, TV shows and even commercials portraying women as smart and competent while men are maligned and ridiculed. The results of this continued browbeating of men has manifested itself in marriage statistics. In the UK, marriage is now at its lowest level since 1895. There has been a 41% decline in the number of marriages from 1972 to 2011 in Great Britain. In the United States, the share of Americans who have never been married is the highest it has ever been. In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older (about 42 million people) had never been married,according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data. According to Dr. Helen Smith, the author of “Men on Strike,” “[Men] don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.” With women initiating 65-90% of divorces, men are reluctant to commit to them given the severe negative consequences they face in a divorce. The destruction of gender relations paired with a loss of masculinity has stopped men from fulfilling their role as protectors of society.

Germany is a good example where men are not standing up to female leadership that supports migrants entering their country. Angela Merkel, who in spite of all the recent terror attacks in Europe plans to continue to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter Germany. “We will live up to our humanitarian responsibility,” she said. “The refugee crisis is a historic test for Europe, which I am convinced it will pass. Even if everything we do in Europe is interminably arduous.” Merkel seems oblivious to the threat the migrants pose and instead wants to nurture them like a mother. This may be because she does not have any children of her own and wants to be a mother to the migrants. Her words show that allowing the migrants is a purely emotional decision, which is feminine in nature. She sees this as a test of the German people’s kindness. Passing the test would involve providing for the migrants as if they were their own children. This good will is going to lead to the end of a nation if current trends continue.

According to an analysis by Professor Adorján F. Kovács from the Goethe-Universität at Frankfurt am Main, if the current rates of migration into Germany continue, German men in the 20- to 30-year-old age group will be a minority in their own country by 2020. There is no going back once this point is reached. This demographic shift is due to the large number of men between the ages of 20 and 35 who are entering the country. Many of them go on welfare and have children who are supported by the taxpayers. With family reunification, the muslim population is set to quadruple to 20 million by 2020. When you also take into account how the aging German population will eventually die off, you can only imagine what the demographics of the nation will look like in the future. Dr. Stefanie von Berg, a member of the Hamburg Parliament, said “Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be German majorities in our city.” She went on to tell the radical right wingers who oppose this that “this [change] is good.” This is yet another example of a female politician not acknowledging the threat that this demographic shift will have on her country. Germany as a nation may survive, but the native population that makes Germany, well, German will no longer be in control of their own country. Forever.

A simple question should be asked of people like Dr. Berg: Do you want to live in a Middle Eastern country? The reason this question should be asked is because people are not interchangeable. Germany is a creation of ethnic Germans and their culture. They have a tradition of Western civilization and freedom of religion. The migrants, on the other hand, come from countries where the vast majority of muslims are in favor of sharia law. A new survey showed that 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only source of law in the country. That figure in the United Kingdom is at 69 percent. Sharia law is antithetical to Western ideas of freedom of religion and rights for women and homosexuals. If all the people in the Middle East and Germany switched geographical areas, you would have a much hotter Germany in the Middle East and a much more temperate version of the Middle East in Germany. The geography may change, but the values that people carry will not. If the answer to the question I asked earlier is no, why would you want Middle Easterners to become a majority in your nation? If you want to preserve individual liberty and equal rights for all people, you would fight to stop an antithetical culture from entering your country.

As Thranholm puts it, Europe is like a “battered wife.” In the face of the migrant crisis, the political leaders in Europe “acted like timid mother hens, not as strong men responsible for guarding their country from an invasion.” I do believe there is a solution to this problem, albeit a brutal one. That solution is a financial collapse. Eventually, the governments of Europe will end up running out of money trying to support their native population and take care of all of the migrants who are going on welfare. Given the the high percentages of migrants on welfare, they will probably cause mayhem when their benefits no longer exist. They have already demonstrated a propensity for violence through riots and sexual violence.

When the collapse happens, women in Europe will have to look to their men for resources and physical protection, especially if they have children. I think they will try to return to traditional values during that crisis. However, I fear they may be disappointed to see that their men are not willing to oblige. Men are very aware of the disadvantages that they have in entering a relationship and are tired of continuous verbal abuse they have received from feminists. They have woken up to how they are being treated as disposal ATM machines subject to scorn. Only look at marriage statistics and the popularity of the MGTOW movement to know this is true. I think that many men will decide not to protect or provide for women in that dangerous time. The resentment that men feel will manifest in their unwillingness to help the very women who abused them for so long. This will serve as an exceptionally grim lesson for all women. So grim, that it will be a lesson that is passed on for generations to come. Women will come understand that belittling and emasculating their men resulted in a disaster that left them bereft of protectors when danger reared its ugly head. Hopefully, women decide to embrace traditional female virtues before they end up trying to make a naked transaction for money and protection. I pray that it happens before Western Civilization is destroyed.

The Instinct for Self-Preservation: Why Gun Control Does Not Work

We have heard time and again from politicians and gun control advocates that America needs to follow the example of the rest of the developed world and impose strict gun control laws. Piers Morgan ran a crusade for gun control after the shooting at Sandy Hook, asking Ben Shapiro in an interview, “why don’t we try our way?” Morgan was referring to the total gun ban in the UK. Hollywood stars have also called for gun control, with Matt Damon saying that Americans “need to evolve further” in order to be open to implementing Australian style gun control. Put simply, Americans are too brutal and primitive to understand the wisdom of liberal gun control policies. In this post I am going to argue on behalf of the philistines and make the case as to why we support the 2nd amendment and are against gun control.

Let us begin with the language and interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The text reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Progressives read this and say that only people in a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This is a complete misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment and must be fully refuted. Author J. Neil Schulman conducted an exercise with retired Professor of Journalism Roy Copperud to examine the language of the 2nd amendment and its meaning. Copperud taught journalism at USC for 17 years and is on the usage panel of the America Heritage Dictionary. Miriam-Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Schulman asked Copperud a series of questions on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I have part of their conversation below:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

This exchange clearly shows that Americans have a natural right to keep and bear arms that is not granted, but rather protected by the 2nd amendment. A well-regulated militia is one of the benefits of having an armed population. However, it is not the only reason for a population to be armed. The right to keep and bear arms belongs only to the people, not the militia. A militia, by definition, is made up of a group of people who bring their own guns. It cannot exist without an armed population. The reason the Founding Fathers adopted this amendment is because they had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical king. They recognized that they could not have won the Revolutionary war without an armed population. Therefore, they decided to protect the people’s natural right to bear arms in the event that they face another tyranny in the future. They wanted the people to be able to start another revolution if necessary. Thomas Jefferson once said in a private letter, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” Only look at the unarmed masses who were made to submit to tyrants in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China to see the wisdom of his words.

In addition to resisting government tyranny, we as human beings have a right to defend ourselves from those who try to hurt or kill us. I once had a conversation with a friend who, when asked if he would use a gun to defend himself, said that he would rather let the assailant kill him than use a gun to defend himself. I did not believe him. While his words may impress his friends at a cocktail party, I think if he were facing death he would want a person with a gun to save him. When someone makes that argument, what they are saying is that humans are the only creatures on Earth who do not have a right to defend themselves. If we see a lion chase after a gazelle and during the altercation the gazelle injures the lion with its horns, would we fault the gazelle? Doesn’t that gazelle have a right to defend itself? Why then would we deny the right of self-defense to humans? We have a right to kill someone who is trying to murder us in the same way that the gazelle has a right to hurt or even kill the lion that tries to eat it. Lions are predators that hunt the weakest in the herd of gazelles. Criminals are the same in that they target those who cannot defend themselves, namely the unarmed.

Having a gun is a strong deterrent against violent criminals. How many felons who are sitting prison would say that they want their potential victims to be alert and armed? None. It would be suicidal for them to attack someone who is armed. Gun control laws would only make it easier for them to commit crimes. When you pass a law that disarms the population, the only people who will follow it are law-abiding citizens. In other words, not the criminals. For example, mass shooters look for areas with unarmed potential victims so that they can kill as many people as they can. They therefore go to gun-free zones where they know that nobody will shoot back at them. If you look at mass public shootings from 1950 to July 10th 2016, 98.4% of them took place in gun-free zones. The recent shooting in Orlando also took place in a gun-free zone. The innocent people inside a gun-free zone during these shootings must wait until the police show up for someone to defend them. Until then, they can only pray that they are not killed. It is important to note that the police do not stop crime, they arrive after the crime is committed. They only draw the chalk outline of where your body was after you were murdered. Only you can stop an assailant when a crime is in progress with your own firearm. The residents of my hometown of Chicago are not allowed to have the gun they need to defend themselves. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but extremely high rates of gun crimes and murders. Between last Friday and early Thursday 99 people were shot in Chicago, 24 of them fatally. The laws that were instituted to stop those shootings are in fact allowing them to happen.

The fallacy of gun control is that it is an attempt to ban murders by banning guns. That is fundamentally impossible for two reasons. The first is that human beings have been murdering each other well before firearms existed. Violence and murder are a part of the human condition and cannot be stopped by laws. If someone has the motivation to kill someone, they will not care if they violate a gun law in the process of committing the murder. The second reason is that there is no way that the government could get rid of all of the guns in America. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are more than 300 million guns in America. That is almost one gun for every person. It is impossible to track down all of them. Even if gun control laws were instituted, criminals will still find a way to get their hands on guns. Even if we call the police when they commit a crime, we will still be relying on men with guns to defend us.

When liberals say they want gun control, it is really a misnomer. Their position is that guns should not be in the hands of private citizens, but exclusively in the hands of the government. Advocates for a total gun ban in reality want the government to use its guns to take guns away from citizens. The irony is that their proposal to ban guns requires the use of guns. Furthermore, they will make it much easier for a tyrant to subjugate us by taking away our means to resist. We will also be left defenseless in the face of violent criminals. As one of the philistines, I am not smart enough to see the wisdom of these policies. Until I can, I will remain ignorant and support the 2nd amendment and my right to defend myself with a firearm.