Right Wing Fighter

Category: Immigration

Trump should make English America’s Official Language

Trump should make English our official language. This is an issue that’s popped up from time to time but has never been settled. America is an English-speaking country. We ought to make it official.

Of course, there are humbugs who would oppose it. Chiefly immigrants and those who cater to them. But so what? Anything in politics gets opposed by someone. And many of those who will oppose it are anti-American anyhow, so their opposition should be taken as a badge of honor.

It will also serve to tell the world that Trump means business about putting Americans first. Official English will send the message that America is for us. It will tell the world we’re not a hotel for all the world’s travelers.

Why is Every Wrong Act an Act of Cowardice?

If you’ve paid any attention to the news, you know that every massacre, beating, gang attack, and so forth, is referred to as an act of “cowardice.”

Now I wonder why?

Why, instead of condemning the act as evil, or the actors as evil, instead they reach for cowardice?

Frankly, I’m embarrassed when I hear it. They sound like a bunch of nincompoops who are sanctimoniously lecturing a wrongdoer. Cowardice? Do they really think the perpetrator, or the victims, cares if it was an act of cowardice? Will that kind of condemnation stop future crimes?

Consider the case of the 14 year old Australian who was attacked by Africans. That case was referred to as an act of cowardice as well. Do these people think:

(A), that it will give any comfort to the boy to have his attackers called cowards?

(B), that it will stop future attacks from African migrants on native Australians?

Now, what if this had been said instead:

“For African migrants, who we’ve kindly accepted into our nation, to attack one of our native citizens is both shocking and aggravating. This will not be allowed to continue. We will prosecute any such crimes, including this one, with the utmost vigor and energy. We will remove such criminality from our streets.

Additionally, we are going to reconsider our refugee and immigration policies in light of this event. And we shall reconsider it with full consciousness of what is good for the citizens of Australia.”

Now, what effect do you think that would have? It would make the migrants think twice about cutting their connection to the nice, first world country they are presently living in. A few would doubt the seriousness of the declaration at first. But when their compatriots start getting rounded up and sent back to Africa because of their crimes, they would behave themselves fast.

The leaders of the West are failing their peoples. Sanctimonious condemnations like “cowardice” for crimes both brutal and intolerable shows this.

Mushy Conservatives

I want to introduce a new word into political lingo: “Mushycons.” David Limbaugh is a good example of one.

He strenuously pushes, in good but blind faith, for what he considers “conservatism.” What is that conservatism? Mostly a strong belief in American exceptionalism, a sentimentalistic view of human nature, and a strong but undefined sense that All Will Be Well if we just act like decent people.

Obviously all would be well if everyone would act decently. But many wont, and his belief that simply saying it over and over will make it happen is telling. It demonstrates that he has no real grasp on the world. He doesn’t understand people.

There are other Mushycons than David Limbaugh. Mike Pence is a good example, though his personal tastes differ from Limbaugh’s. But they both align in that they have a sappy view of human nature and a strong but vague sense that advocating decency will Make All Well.

Now if it were just these two talking this way, I wouldn’t mention it. But they are exponents of a large group on the right. Not a few right-wingers oppose Trump because he isn’t “decent.” Increasingly they’re getting on board the Trump Train. But it’s because he’s got the only train in the station.

So what are these people then? Sappy people with good intentions? Perhaps they aren’t sappy at all. Perhaps this is the answer:

We all tend to view the world from our own standpoint. As such, most of our blindness in life is due to measuring people’s actions from our standpoint instead of theirs. There is no relativism in this. This is merely a question of motive, of goal.

So let’s say folks like David Limbaugh are, and want to be, decent in their lives. They see clearly the good things that flow from this behavior and naturally urge others to act the same. Additionally, they see the evils that flow from not being decent. Their minds turn on little else, and as such they conclude that, as stated above, All Will Be Well if the goal of being decent were adopted. Thus they avoid anyone who doesn’t act in a decent way, and continually, in spite of circumstances, urge that others act decently too.

Now, an incautious decency gets you into trouble. For instance, you wouldn’t want to be president and be decent with Putin. You’d want to be cold and ruthless because that’s what he’s going to be. Anything less will put you at a disadvantage.

Decent people deserve to be treated decently. And indecent people don’t, although it may be politic to do so. But to act decently to everyone is hazardous. It sets you up for dangerous exposure.

To come back to the concept of “Mushycons,” it seems that they can be described thus:

  • They do little of their own thinking; thus their intellect is loaded with the ideas of others;
  • They know little of the world around them, and thus know little of human nature;
  • Therefore, they think that they can just advocate their core motive, decency, and that that will be enough.

I think that, to take concepts from my post on knowledge, that these people aren’t seers or calculators. They see little of the world and as such know little of it. Also, they aren’t thinking men: they don’t draw lines between the things they’ve learned to increase their body of knowledge. As such, they only know what they’ve been told. Since nothing has ever contradicted their view of human nature, they keep their unfounded thoughts. They approach the world very dimly, and measure people based on how they themselves would act. Hence the misunderstanding of human nature.

They don’t see the world as a place built out of people with different goals. Instead, they see a world in which everyone at bottom has the same goal, but some have forgotten it. As such, they think mere advocacy will do the job. It’s like the imprint is there, but it must be unearthed.

I think this is very clear in George W. Bush, and his conviction when president that everyone on earth wanted American style freedom. As such, in the case of Iraq, all they needed was to be liberated for All To Be Well. Since, to Bush, they wanted exactly what he wanted, all he had to do was give them the opportunity and they would act like Americans. This didn’t happen, obviously. It didn’t happen, because the Iraqis have different goals than Americans do. As such, liberating them from Saddam Hussein gave them free rein to do what they’d do, not what we would do.

We see the same thing with people, typically right wingers, who believe that amnesty and immigration is actually a good thing. They’ll say things like “They’re just coming here to live their lives;” or “They just want to escape oppression, like we did with George the 3rd;” or “They just want a better life for their children.” And on and on it goes. All these statements have nothing to do with the immigrants themselves: it’s purely a projection of the people saying them.

This is because, again, they aren’t seers or calculators. They know little of the world, and as such they assume other people are like them. There are bad people, like Saddam Hussein, that keep people from all acting the same: but at bottom, to these people, we all want the same thing.

That explains their naiveté. It also explains their denseness to facts. The statistics of immigrant crime and poverty, for instance, have no effect on them. This is because they don’t have the capacity to process the information, or even just see the results themselves. They are stuck in their own world, because they only understand (A), what is inside themselves; (B), what has been drilled into their heads over and over again.

So at bottom, the Mushycons are this: decent people without clear sight or strong minds for calculation. As such, they know cliches and what’s inside themselves.

Trump’s VP Pick; Rumors Say it’s Mike Pence

Rumors are circulating that Trump is going to pick Mike Pence for VP.

I certainly hope not. Pence is an amnesty man and a go-along-get-along type of Republican. He backed and worked hard to get amnesty passed back during George W. Bush’s administration. Additionally, he’s a free-trade, business-first Republican.

Picking Pence would be a huge mistake.

I hope instead that Trump will pick Jeff Sessions. Sessions is a nationalist and a workers-first man. He’s one of the best men in politics on the issue of immigration. Additionally, he’s got the right temperament for VP.

What I’d like to see is Trump pick Sessions for his first term. Sessions is 69, and as such he’s too old to take over for Trump after eight years. The best thing would be for Trump to pick him for the first four years of his administration, and then pick a younger man for the second four years. The immigration fight will be hottest in Trump’s first term, and it will be important to have an experienced, old hand at the issue. Additionally, Trump will need a man he can trust.

With Trump, immigration will be the central issue. This will pull a lot of legitimate, America-first immigration patriots out of the woodwork. Thus I expect there would be plenty of choices for VP after the battle is over. There aren’t that many to choose from right now. But after four years of battle, the line will have been drawn and sides will have been chosen. It will be pretty easy to find a good man for the job then.

But for right now, Sessions is the best man.

The Good of American Workers

The good of American workers needs to be the central theme in politics.

The left’s love of perverse individualism must be stopped. The right’s love of business must be stopped too. There needs to be a worker’s party in American politics.

Because, firstly, the workers are America. Second, without their livelihoods being safe, their whole position in the country isn’t stable. At the present rate of outsourcing, immigration, and bad trade deals, American workers will be driven to poverty within the next half century. This will destroy him in American society. It will reduce him to the level of a medieval peasant. He will end up a dependent of the government.

This must not happen. The left’s anti-society individualism must be stopped. And the right’s addiction to business must be stopped too. We need a worker’s party in America.

Where the workers go, the nation goes.

Labor Union Betrayal

Labor unions have historically been against immigration. In the United States, the immigration reform efforts of the late 19th and early 20th century were fueled by labor unions. This is because, back then, the unions actually looked after their members. They opposed an ever-increasing labor pool because it would eventually push their members into poverty.

Today the major labor unions are leftist. They’re cosy with the Democratic party and with globalism generally. They’ve betrayed the interests of their members. The answer is not to try to destroy labor unions. The answer is to found new ones. And having founded them, they must push the old ones onto the scrap heap.

Labor unions are the key to immigration reform. Without them, there won’t be an organized political force to cut immigration and keep it cut.

In the early to mid 20th century, globalists tried to raise immigration several times. It was the labor unions that stopped it. We are going to need that kind of force in the 21st century as well. Assuming Trump gets elected and cuts immigration (which I’m confident he will), that wont stop the business interests that want more immigration. They’ll keep pushing for it until it becomes law or a no man’s land. And it will only be a no man’s land if there’s a permanent political force opposed to it. Only labor unions can be that force.

A Nation’s Right to Set Its Immigration Policy

A nation has the sole right to set its immigration policy. Nobody else can presume to tell another nation that it must destroy itself with bad immigration policies. It’s the exclusive right of each nation to set an immigration policy that will benefit it the most.

The globalist liberals that tell western nations to destroy themselves are out of their depth. They have no right to advocate that western nations destroy themselves. They are out of their authority. Just as a man would be beyond his authority to tell another man that he should kill himself.

Immigration is not a Right

It’s popular for liberals to act like immigration to America is a human right. But this is wrong. There is no right for a person to move from one country to another. It is entirely the right of the nation to decide who can and can’t come. There is no human right to immigrate.

The people of America can choose to allow as many or as few as they like. There is no moral responsibility that Americans bear regarding immigration. It can and must be guided by what is good for America. Anything less is a betrayal of the nation.

Immigration and Culture

Some will say that to expect people to drop their old thougths and ways and become like us is unjust, since they have a right to their way of doing things. But they are forgetting that these people are coming to our nation, to live within our borders, under our government. The nation is ours, and we have a right to expect people to live the way we do. If they want to continue living the way they always have, they can live in their nation, within their borders, under their government.

Outsourcing

Outsourcing is a particularly bad example of globalism. Sending our jobs to other countries to get things made cheaper is little more than a betrayal of our own citizens. How can they support themselves without jobs? How can the country be strong if it produces less and less each year? Yet business by and large doesn’t seem to mind, except some small businesses. To the bigger ones, it’s just about getting the bigger buck.

And why is this so? Did companies in the past sell out their own country’s workers for a better bottom line? Didn’t they feel any loyalty to their fellow citizens? To a greater extent they did. Of course there were globalists, even far in the past. But local business ties were stronger, say, a century ago. But nowadays, business is focused, again aside from smaller ones, on bigger bucks. They aren’t loyal to their own countrymen. This is a disgrace and a good reason why workers don’t tend to trust their employers as much as, say, the GOP does. The conduct of the Chamber of Commerce, which is basically a union for businesses, is telling.

The Chamber of Commerce is focused on more workers and less regulation. That’s why for several years now they’ve been considered an asset to a number of people on the right: some on the right are simply anti-government, and the Chamber’s anti-regulation goals line up pretty well. And since not a few on the right are mere anti-government ideologues, the fact that the Chamber also supports increased immigration and amnesty isn’t a deal breaker. This is because some on the right don’t recognize that the nation exists. They don’t see a country, they see an economy. Because of that, they have no loyalty to it.

But with the rise of Trump and what might be called the American Worker’s Revolution, the Chamber has been under increased attacks, as have big businesses that put profits ahead of their workers and countrymen. American workers are natively patriotic, and this is driving a wave of nationalism as they get reengaged in politics. The Democrats should beware: these are the same blue-collars that gave Reagan a landslide victory in ’80 and ’84. They’re setting up to do so again. This is also a warning and a call to action for GOP members of congress and of state governments. If they want to win at the ballot box, they’ve got to support pro-worker policies.

These policies include:

• No amnesty for illegals

• Decreasing legal immigration

• Cutting guest worker programs

Additionally, they should support commonsense worker education at the state level to get young workers and people who have lost their jobs ready for work. They should also actively encourage business to help with worker training for our native stock of citizens.

If the GOP were to become the worker’s party in America, they would have incredible success. As it is now, they squeeze by as the “Not Democrat” party. That’s why there’s no enthusiasm for the GOP. To be successful, they must embrace workers.