Jefferson on immigration

From the Identity Dixie blog, a nice piece on the immigration views of one of our English-descended forefathers, Thomas Jefferson.

These days it seems a rare thing to find, on a right-wing or alt-right blog, any favorable mentions of Thomas Jefferson. One blog in particular (which will be nameless) has a few commenters who accuse Jefferson of everything from the old canard about his siring children by a slave, to having ‘thrown open the gates to immigrants‘.

From the Identity Dixie post, we read Jefferson’s own arguments against mass importation of foreigners, and the possible deleterious effects of doing that — which is, of course, just what our derelict rulers are doing right now. Too bad none of them seem to have read Jefferson’s wise words, from Notes on the State of Virginia.

“But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The writer of the blog piece, Lpantera, points out the important fact, often forgotten in this era of the ‘proposition nation’ dogma, that nations (that is, peoples) produce governments, not the other way around, as often implied by the ignorant. The people make the place; a country (including its government) is its people.

And just what kind of people produced our original system of government? Yes, I have repeated it often here, and I will say it as long as other people continue to make opposing claims about who the original American people were, and who the ‘posterity’ of the founders are:

What nation produced the American government, this unique entity in the world? The English nation – the Anglo-Saxon people upheld as the racial basis for the whole of the South by every vocal defender of the South from Calhoun to Davis right up to Governor Wallace and Sam Dickson. What happens if this people is displaced? What is the result of importing en masse a foreign horde from a part of the world in which despotism is the only experienced reality they have? Precisely what history has demonstrated, precisely the result Jefferson predicts: a nation that has been warped, rendered into a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass”.

And yes, it’s good to remember that historically, this was the majority view, taken for granted by most Southron people: the fact of the Anglo-Saxon South.

It matters. Truth always matters.






Brexit delayed

I wrote about Brexit just after the passing of the measure, and it seems since then that there is increasing doubt being cast on the outcome.

Various sources, usually ‘official’ sources, scoff at the idea that there is deliberate intent to thwart the plan to exit the EU. The claims ring very hollow, however,  when it appears that a suit brought by two non-indigenous ‘British’ people will delay if not prevent the exit.

“The case was brought by British citizens Gina Miller and Deir dos Santos, a hairdresser.”

They may be British citizens, obviously citizenship is made too easy — but they are not British (or English, Scottish, or Welsh) but of foreign origin. Miller is described as a multi-millionaire, and is of Guyanese origin, while Deir dos Santos, whose name is obviously Portuguese, is Brazilian in origin.

Just for the record, the  law firm behind this is Mishcon de Reya, described as a “British” law firm with offices in New York and London. It was founded by a Victor Mishcon, and as I suspected, he was ‘the son of a rabbi’. Were his parents British-born? I can’t be bothered to look it up, because obviously some identities transcend place of birth; one can be ‘in’ a country but not ‘of’ it, which is the case here, evidently. Just a bit of trivia about Mishcon: they represented Princess Diana. And it appears they are a bit of a left-wing activist law firm.

So whichever way you cut it, there are moneyed and powerful — and foreign — interests trying their best to thwart the will of the majority of the people of Britain, that is, the rightful heirs of the country of Britain.

We have a de facto one-world government now, it seems, when foreign people with interests in opposition to the native-born majorities can exercise power and influence to such a degree. It’s as true here as there.

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will ever be put into effect, what with these machinations going on.