This summer, the story on immigration began to focus on the surging numbers of unaccompanied minors at the borders.
From liberals, we heard impassioned pleas to welcome these increasingly teeming masses of children out of our bottomless compassion, and shaming language directed at the greed and selfishness of anyone who objected. From conservatives, we heard cautions about their possible criminality, dependency, and ill-health. From libertarians, we heard schizophrenia, on the one hand, acknowledgement of the growing burden of sheltering them while authorities decide whether to deport them, or increasingly, to welcome them as refugees; on the other hand, railing about the injustice of turning any away when “no doubt” (according to them) there are plenty of Americans willing to take them in as an act of private charity.
One thing that’s been played up to no end are the allegedly dire circumstances these children are fleeing. But while some of these kids certainly face dire circumstances, not all of them do; probably not even most of them. Most likely what they’re “fleeing” is a difficult, impoverished, but ordinary (by their standards) life.
On this week’s Daily Shoah we discuss the child sex abuse scandal in Rotherham, England, the desperate scrambling by progressives to preserve their narrative as well as potential consequences for European politics than none of us really know anything about. Finally Morrakiu rounds it out with a look at the real culprits behind it all in this week’s “Merchant Minute.”
A loyal TRSer must always try to find the hidden euphoria among the constant rustling and triggering in our fallen world if he is to maintain his sanity. A recent rustling that has gotten a lot of attention in our sphere is the Boston Globe “Mexizona” cartoon. White native born American whites ever-so-hilariously find themselves walled-out of the US and, I suppose, “illegal” immigrants in Mexico? It’s hard to describe. Ham-fisted failures at actual comedy usually are.
I would like to revisit the commentary on how the supposed “Mexicans” are depicted in the drawing. It has already been pointed out, they appear as white people with sun-tans. Not ditch diggers, leaf blowers or squat taco-shell bending mothers of 12, but as GQ-reading, Louis Vitton knock-off buying, stylish, white yuppies with extra melanin.
The first episode of our new podcast experiment. With Michael Enoch, Ghoul, Bulbasaur and Seventh Son (aka Bjorn This Way). Special thanks to Seventh Son for audio production. We discuss race, immigration, politics, religion and social life from our unique TRS perspective. Prepare your anuses and ear canals for the best social commentary on the internet.
Today’s piece of insufferably snotty SWPL status signaling comes to us courtesy of Ward Sutton, editorial cartoonist for the The Boston Globe. I would repost the entire thing here, but I genuinely don’t want to get into copyright issues with a major newspaper, so just go there to read it. We’ll be here when you get back. (Trigger warning: Appallingly arrogant liberal snarkiness.)
This cartoon is not funny. Well, save for the gag about American Southwest themed art being crap. That gave me a bit of a chuckle. But other than that, this is about the level of humor and thoughtfulness we can expect from this particular flavor of liberal cartoon propaganda. You know the type. The sort of dreck that is meant to appeal to the average 6/10 brahmin female with thick-rimmed hipster glasses, and whatever beta cuck liberal male she happens to be friendzoning at the moment. See also, Tom Tomorrow, Jen Sorenson etc. The most annoying thing about this sort of slop is the pretense of edginess it puts on while falling square in the middle of pedestrian, mainstream, white elite opinion and narrative.
Protip: If it’s published in a newspaper owned by a billionaire with readership in the millions, it’s not edgy.
Ideological swaps have a common tendency: first, you experience a marked increase in positive feelings and energy towards your new ideology. Second, you disassociate yourself with your previous ideology and sling mud at it. You can’t take it seriously, so even if you have decent critiques of it, the best you can come up with–if you try at all–is a series of strawmen.
It seems that some jimjams have been flimflammed and a media kerfuffle has arisen over a rather banal and saccharine Dildo Super Bowl advertisement put out by the Coca-Cola corporation. The ad depicts various individuals and groups of endearing, non-threatening, SWPL-approved minorities signing “America the Beautiful” in various global (non-English) languages.
At first glance one that has trained his mind in the art of spotting the progressive narrative cannot help but feel a minor trembling in the ol’ Johnathans. On second glance one wonders why one is glancing at this cloying, hackneyed rubbish a second time. Whether the average Dildo Super Bowl viewer was able to pick up on the not-so subtle cultural Marxist messaging here, or whether his mind was already too numb and broken from the unrelenting dildo bludgeoning it had been receiving all evening, I can’t say. I can’t read minds, nor can I relate to the mindset of a Dildo Super Bowl viewer.
This is going to be a critique of Why Should We Restrict Immigration? a paper written by the economist Bryan Caplan that was published in winter 2012 edition of the Cato Journal, which is published by the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. In the paper, Caplan attempts to show that all the common arguments in favor of restricting immigration are flawed and that restricting immigration is an unjust thing for a country to do.
TRS is full of good people. As such, I care about the well being of all of you. We have a nice mixture of white and blue collar, along with some young bucks who have yet to carve their way. I would like to stress the importance of continued education. I’m not talking about taking a worthless English or writing course at your local community college, I’m talking about learning how to do “stuff.”
Stuff is anything one accomplishes with the sweat of their brow and craftsmanship.
Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.
I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.
Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.
Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.