Ending the Immigration Epoch

Is there any hope the West will be able to stop the non-Western immigration that will, and is intended to, destroy it? In truth, yes.

In 1998, after a two-year stint living in China, I came to the conclusion that US immigration policy was extremely irrational and not devised in the best interests of the American people. I knew Americans were almost completely ignorant of the sheer scale of immigration and of the reality of world population and I knew there was some sort of mysterious taboo in place that prevented them from learning these vitally important facts.

The very first thing the Khazars did after seizing power in the US in November, 2020, once inaugurated, was to open the southern border. It was blatantly announced. Remember? It was an ugly and spiteful taunt—a venomous celebration with an unmistakable Talmudic flourish of their victory over their "enemies” (which is us).

So, I founded a nonprofit in New York City to raise public awareness about the impact of US immigration policies on the nation. Part of that effort was a large mobile billboard, dubbed the “Truthmobile,” which we used during the primary campaigns in New Hampshire and South Carolina leading up to the 2000 election to try to inject the immigration issue into the public debate. We would park the Truthmobile outside campaign events where everyone attending the event would be sure to see it, then we would go inside and try to ask the candidates questions about their positions on immigration.

We succeeded in asking every candidate campaigning for the presidency from both parties the same question. “You support an immigration policy that is doubling US population within the lifetimes of the young people in this room even though the majority of voters do not. So, will you at least say where we should stop? When our population reaches a billion? Two billion? Never?”

Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey gave the most thoughtful answer.

Vice President Al Gore’s answer consisted of these four words (in that Tennessee drawl): “Diversity is our strength.” (wild applause from NH Democrats)

Senator John McCain’s answer was the nastiest: “You and I, sir,” he said, drawing his head down into his neck and glaring at me with hatred, “obviously have different views on immigration. But I will say this: there is no room in the Republican Party for racists, bigots, and xenophobes.” (no applause at all from SC Republicans)

Governor George W. Bush had the longest answer. Here’s the exchange between us (the guy who asked the question just before me mentioned the Truthmobile parked outside and said it was prejudiced against immigrants—he was such a dweeb that the guy sitting behind him finally grabbed him by the belt and yanked him back into his chair to shut him up):

A small group in Mason City, Iowa read about our Truthmobile and contacted us after the election asking whether they could use it in an upcoming parade. Sure, we said, and the arrangements were made.

From the Mason City Globe-Gazette:

Festival organizers apologize for anti-immigration float
Mason-City Globe-Gazette. June 4, 2001

..."The only drawback for the whole entire weekend was one float entry which carried an anti-immigration message," said festival coordinator Vance Baird Sunday. "We want people to know that we were totally deceived when the float was entered and that we apologize for it being part of the parade."

The float, which was pulled by a car, carried the message, "In your 20's? Immigration will double U.S. population in your life time." The float also carried a Web site address.

The message was simply a neutral, straightforward Census Bureau statistic. The fact that Vance Baird saw it as “anti-immigration” means that he knew the policy was harmful.

"There is no place in Mason City for the type of racism and bigotry that this float emphasized," Baird said.

Emphasized? The Truthmobile’s message didn’t even make a value judgment regarding population growth, let alone race. It simply stated a statistical fact of which a small group of Americans felt their neighbors should be aware.

Doubling the size of a population within a single lifetime through a massive influx of foreigners is reckless in the extreme—a wildly irresponsible policy, in fact, the consequences of which are irreversible, unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic. Everybody, at some level, understands that. When Vance Baird attacked a neutral, race-free message concerning immigration as “racist,” it showed only that he had learned how to align his opinions with the opinions of the powerful.

"We attempted to take the float out of the parade. But because of the driver's refusal to move, anything short of physically removing her would not have worked."...

The driver, by the way, was a 70-year-old grandmother named Janice Easley. I met her in person. Vance Baird made the wise decision not to try to remove Mrs. Easley physically.

Eric Schmitt, the reporter on the New York Times article above, writes from Mason City,

Groups that back restrictions on immigration, like the Federation for American Immigration Reform and ProjectUSA, which had lost much of their audience in the last five years, have gotten a second wind.

ProjectUSA had only been in existence two-and-a-half years at that point. We were the second wind.

They are seizing on the new fears of immigration…

No, Eric, “new fears” didn’t just tumble out of the sky one day. A solid majority of Americans have long “feared” our destructive immigration policies despite the blackout on useful, important, and relevant information by, especially, the paper you write for.

and providing money

ProjectUSA spent $175 on the Mason City effort.

and advisers to local campaigns, including the one here in Mason City, a town of 29,000

29,000 what? Americans? Nope…

people that is 93.4 percent non-Hispanic white…

It’s those last half dozen words that have cowed the majority into silence—that have locked immigration policy into place at full-throttle, with no debate, no emergency kill switch, on autopilot to whatever destiny awaits, however destructive or deadly. Those half dozen words ensure there will be only one morally acceptable position on immigration. The 93.4 percent non-Hispanic white people of Mason City have learned, as we all have, that there is something unseemly about a place that white—something suspect, even sinister, some hidden shame lurking beneath the surface. The very whiteness of a place like Mason City is its own accusation and sends weak men like Vance Baird scrambling to reassure The New York Times of their ideological nonwhiteness—their deracinated virtue. This pusillanimity is rampant among whites everywhere, but especially in the northern Great Plains, where a pathological version of “Minnesota nice” manifests as a terror of name-calling—of being seen publicly as immoral. And, of course, there is no greater immorality for a white person in modern America than “racism.”

There was a great example of the unidirectional morality of anti-racism in the controversy that erupted in Mason City in the wake of Janice Easley’s heroic refusal to be bullied out of her spot in the parade. The Mason City Globe-Gazette sponsored a town hall meeting at the city auditorium to address the controversy. The meeting featured questions from the audience to a panel of city officials and representatives from various groups, including ProjectUSA and Mason City’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (HCC). At one point the representative from the HCC turned to the ProjectUSA representative, an early ProjectUSA donor from just over the border in southern Minnesota, and asked how many Latinos were members of ProjectUSA. Paul had no answer, of course, and the HCC representative sat back with an air of triumph, as if Paul’s inability to produce proof ProjectUSA wasn’t all-white was in itself sufficient condemnation.

I had just arrived in town unannounced and was standing at the back of the auditorium with the rest of the overflow crowd, intending only to watch. But the gall of the HCC rep was too much. I waved over one of the microphones, introduced myself, and said Paul was unable to provide the number of Latino members in ProjectUSA for the very good reason we didn’t ask people what color they were when they joined. “Unlike the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” I said, “ProjectUSA is open to everyone regardless of race.” The point had its intended effect, drawing loud applause, but what I found amazing was the number of whites who quickly came to the defense of the HCC (the national media were in the room), with one white guy in the audience absurdly offering to join the HCC right then and there. Undoubtedly, these same whites, so embarrassingly eager in front of a national audience to absolve Mason City of its whiteness, would have condemned in the most righteous language any white group that excluded Latinos. The cow-like innocence and lack of self-awareness among the cucked is infinite.

“It is a world not of angels but of angles,” Saul Alinsky wrote, “where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral.” It was in the language of moral principles that Vance Baird publicly smeared Janice Easley and ProjectUSA, ascribing racism where there was none, but he was acting according to power principles, since the New York Times is vastly more powerful than a single mobile billboard in a small town parade.¹ But truth has its own kind of power—the power to reposition the moral high ground in an instant. And therein lies the West’s only hope.

Three years later, we were back in Iowa. ProjectUSA had identified several congressional districts in which incumbents running for reelection in 2004 were co-sponsoring an atrocious amnesty bill in Congress that we determined would be particularly unpopular in their districts. One of those was Iowa’s 3rd District, which included Des Moines, and was represented by a Democrat named Leonard Boswell. During campaign season, we put up billboards in his district calling attention to his support for the amnesty bill. This bill, known as AgJOBS, allowed foreign nationals to apply for amnesty from outside the country. It allowed foreign “nonprofits” and the foreign offices of domestic “civil rights” organizations like La Raza to provide “verification” of the applicants’ previous illegal status in the United States. It prohibited US authorities from accessing the records of the organizations providing this verification. And, it permitted immigration lawyers to bill US taxpayers for the legal fees they charged for filling out the applications, the number of which was unlimited. Our billboards read, simply, “Congressman Leonard Boswell supports amnesty for illegal aliens.” And there was a web address to where the claim was demonstrated and the details of AgJOBS exposed.

Suddenly, the immigration issue exploded into the IA-03 race. Rep. Boswell was left reeling and hurling invective, but ineffectively, since the billboards were accurate and his position was, indeed, very unpopular. I did a long interview on the top morning drive time radio station in Des Moines, WHO-AM, describing the bill the listeners’ representative in Congress had put his name to and horrified voters demanded answers. “ProjectUSA,” Rep. Boswell explained, “is racist.” In addition to Vance Baird of Mason City, other Iowans who thought that that was a great explanation were the editorial board of the Des Moines Register and Stan Thompson, Rep. Boswell’s Republican challenger.

Yes, his challenger, instead of shutting up and accepting the political gift he’d been handed, couldn’t resist the chance to display his high moral principles. He publicly denounced our billboards and called for us to take them down, thereby neutering any positive impact they might have had.² While the immigration restrictionist movement was able to derail AgJOBS in this instance, with special credit going to NumbersUSA, the sheer stupidity and cheap corruptibility of the political class in general, as demonstrated by the very fact that a bill this monstrous had ever been introduced in the first place, precludes the possibility that there will be a legislated end to the immigration epoch.

The immigration restriction movement is probably the least likely of all political movements to achieve success democratically even though restrictionists have long had the majority behind them (or did back then, anyway). There are three basic reasons for this:

1. Race is the only ground on which the immigration issue could be contested that has the polarizing power and stored up political charge to generate an actual movement imbued with a sense of urgency. The first rounds of that fight would likely be brutal, with the restrictionist side taking a sustained beating, but, because their racial arguments would be so strong, the restrictionists would probably prevail in the long run if they could withstand the attacks. Whether they could prevail in time to do any good at this point is another question. Restrictionist organizations cannot serve as the vehicle for a racially based restrictionist argument because they have staffs, donors, and boards of directors that would not be able to endure the name-calling.

2. The most powerful advocates for mass non-white immigration to the United States are and always have been Jews. With every passing year, of course, the growth in the various non-white groups—Chinese, Indians, Muslims, Latinos—increases their political power as well, and they will always support bringing greater numbers of their co-ethnics into the country, but Jewish political power dwarfs all of them combined, and, with the possible exception of support for Israel, there is no issue on which Jews are more committed. On immigration, Jews seem to speak with one political voice and that voice is unwavering in its commitment to making white gentiles a minority—a hated minority—in this and every other Western country. Unfortunately, just as, according to Solzhenitsyn, the Russian intelligentsia and educated classes adopted the Jewish view of Russia in the years leading up to the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent genocide of 66 million Russian Christians, so, too, have we adopted the Jewish view of ourselves and our history. We have allowed ourselves to be placed in the position—racially—of moral inferiority. Meanwhile, through their Holocaust victim story, the Jews have installed themselves in the position of moral superiority. Fraudulently. On that moral superiority, Ron Unz writes, “the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.” And while Jews and every other group are unabashedly ethnocentric, when whites are ethnocentric, it’s called “white supremacy” and our own government has declared it to be the greatest threat there is to the United States. For the reasons listed in the first point, no restrictionist organization is capable of confronting this state of affairs head on, but confronted it must be. The moral inversion of the West cannot be righted unless the Jewish position of moral superiority is exposed as the fraud it is. It is necessary to learn and speak the truth, which is to say, we will need to be antisemitic to survive.

3. Jews are already in substantial control of the United States. They are in complete control of our foreign policy and have been for a very long time. By extension, they determine where, when, and why our military deploys—to the great misfortune of the rest of the world, except Israel. All the most important and influential institutions in America are dominated by Jews—the financial system, the media, including the film, music, and publishing industries, academia, and all three branches of the federal government—judiciary, executive, and legislative. Our political system itself is subordinate to Jewish power; from 2020 on, elections are for entertainment purposes only. Immigration restrictionists cannot overcome these obstacles by working for political change from within the system. But they will not work for political change from outside the system because immigration restrictionists, like most Americans, believe antisemitism is a real thing instead of the hateful, psychotic Jehovah hallucination that it actually is. Thus, they believe an accusation of antisemitism is a serious accusation and, in order to avoid such a charge against themselves, remain tethered safely but uselessly inside the system. In the end, restrictionists hand their foes a powerful weapon for free; they simply avoid speaking or thinking about Jews altogether (and even this will be cited eventually as evidence of antisemitism as it was in Russia just before the Jews tortured and slaughtered 66 million innocent Russian Christians). Since the 1970s, immigration restrictionists have been like passengers on a hijacked plane trying to regain control of the plane by adjusting the altitude and speed while never acknowledging the fact of the hijackers themselves.

However, there are still some areas in which you still have some freedom to resist the descending tyranny. You can still lift up and enlighten those of our people you encounter who have succumbed to the self-hatred they’ve been taught since birth. Also, the Internet is still relatively free and open for us Americans, though the Jews are doing their best to make some online truths declared “antisemitic hate speech” and illegal in the United States, as they’ve already succeeded in doing in many countries in Europe as well as in Ron DeSantis’ Florida (where even antisemitic littering carries a ten-year prison term). And, you can become a paid subscriber to this blog, so that I can afford to exploit my real talent…

Mock-up of the public display of a hatefact.

…igniting political catharsis.

1. I am quite certain Vance Baird would never dream of publicly denouncing The New York Times for its long history of actual racism directed against white gentiles, such as the inflammatory, dishonest, and exceedingly poisonous Tuskeegee Airmen blood libel it published in 1972.

2. Thompson’s moral principles weren’t so high that they precluded him from accepting campaign contributions from Agriprocessors, Inc., the kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, that was shut down by a massive immigration raid in 2008. Here is a detailed account of our efforts in 2004 to bring that criminal enterprise to justice. In 2010, the CEO, Shalom Rubashkin, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his crimes. President Trump commuted his sentence, but left Julian Assange, a true hero, in solitary confinement in England.