All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:45:01
The Truth About Immigration: What They Won't Tell You!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
Thank you for taking the time as we dive fearlessly headlong into one of the most contentious and volatile issues in US politics with reference to Western Europe.
This is The Truth About Immigration.
As of now, there are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
Over 53,000 child and youth immigrants have attempted to cross the border on their own without their parents since October 2013, which is over 10 times the annual average, and of course the year is far from over as of this recording.
The flow of children illegally entering the United States has created a health care crisis, and hospitals along the border and enraged protesters have stopped buses of immigrant detainees from reaching processing facilities in their local neighborhoods and towns.
U.S. ranchers along the border are threatened by immigrant smugglers known as coyotes on a regular basis.
They're told, look the other way or face the consequences.
And in some incidents, these coyotes have left bagfuls of money and told the ranchers where that money is and said, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
In a note at how warlike the southern U.S. border is becoming, Customs and Border Protection purchased over 36 million rounds of ammunition in their last fiscal year and have argued for an increased militarization of the border to the point where it's being described as a quasi-war zone.
President Barack Obama says, we now have a humanitarian crisis on our border which only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our broken system once and for all.
I guess like Obamacare.
Many are clamoring that the government needs to find a way to fix this problem.
But how did all this happen?
What is the truth about the immigration crisis?
All right. Given the statement that there are a thousand people trimming the trees of evil for those who are hacking at the root, let us have a look back in the 19th century where all this began.
Of course, the U.S. established as a country with open borders.
As long as you weren't actively coughing up a lung or giving birth to aliens out of your chest, you could pretty much come into the country and do what you will.
Up until the First World War throughout Western Europe and, of course, Canada and America, In other countries, you really didn't even need a passport.
You didn't need a green card.
You could simply go and stay and work.
It was not called immigration.
It was simply called moving.
And that all came to an end, as so much of Western civilization of the 19th century came to an end with the outbreak of World War I. In 1868, the Burlingame Treaty between the U.S. and China established official friendly relations between the two countries and encouraged Chinese workers to move to the United States, creating the first major non-European wave of immigrants.
Most of the Chinese were very poor and low-skilled, so they were employed to work on farms or in railway construction.
In fact, Abraham Lincoln had a financial stake in a lot of railway contracts, and this may have prompted some of these contracts.
Now, the Chinese immigrants didn't assimilate into conventional American society.
There's a big difference between European culture and Chinese culture.
And instead chose to cluster together in what came to be known as Chinatowns.
This created a lot of tension between foreigners and natives, with some even calling for the deportation And this is one of the problems, of course, with, I guess, in the 19th century, America was tragically transmogrifying from a republic,
which is, you can vote on a variety of things, but you cannot override the Constitution of the Bill of Rights, from a republic to an old-style Roman or Greek democracy, where it's sort of brute-majority rule, and so when a lot of people different from you come into your country, the concern is...
That they will outvote you or they will vote for things that you don't like or that are counter to your own cultural history.
It's not such a problem in the free market.
If a Chinese restaurant opens up down the street from me, I don't imagine they're going to change my menu at home.
But different things, of course, can occur in a democracy.
In 1882, 17 years after slavery was abolished, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed.
So one of the reasons why the Chinese were brought into America was because of the end of slavery and the need for cheap and exploitable labor.
This was, I guess, insourcing.
In other words, you bring foreign workers in to do American work rather than outsourcing where you take American work and ship it off to foreign workers.
So this Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited immigration of Chinese laborers.
President Grover Cleveland supported the act, proclaiming that the Chinese were, quote, an element ignorant of our constitution and laws, impossible of assimilation, with our people, and dangerous to our peace and welfare.
So I'm going to make a case throughout this conversation that Western Europe, North America, Canada, America, Western Europe are part of what can be colloquially called the Freedom Club.
And the Freedom Club is really the result of 2,500 years from the pre-Socratics, through Socrates, through Greek philosophy, through Roman law in particular, and to a smaller degree, Roman philosophy, through the late...
Middle Ages conflict between secularism and scholasticism, between science and theology, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, the renaissance, the age of reason, the industrial revolution, the separation of church and state, the elimination of the monarchy for most of Western Europe.
There has been a fight in Western Europe and Western culture between the freedom of the individual and that individual subjugation to Ye olde pyramid hierarchy of political coercion.
And this multi-millennia history produces a culture that is skeptical of government power and resistant to expansions of government power.
And having suffered so much under government power, and particularly among the wars of religion in Western Europe for 100 to 150 years, is very keen on the separation of church and state.
These values are not particularly highlighted, to put it as nicely as possible, in other cultures.
So Western Europe gives birth to the Freedom Club.
And the Freedom Club, can it really accept members with no history of the Freedom Club?
Can you have a Hispanic club when you invite a whole bunch of people either indifferent to or hostile to Hispanic values or history come in?
Can you have a pro-gay rights club with a bunch of homophobes coming in and swamping the agenda?
Well, you can't really. And so North America, Canada, and...
America, United States, were founded on this principle of the Freedom Club, and I'm going to make a case throughout this that this is challenged by immigration.
The 1917 Immigration Act established an Asiatic barred zone that covered most of the world's territory, from Afghanistan to the Pacific.
The immigration prohibition was now extended to all people defined as Asian with the addition of homosexuals, idiots, feeble-minded persons, criminals, epileptics, insane persons, alcoholics, professional beggars, all persons mentally or physically defective, polygamists, Now, I will leave to your discretion the figuring out of how many of these words apply to Congress.
In 1875, the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which forbade citizens from discriminating against racial minorities in public places, such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, and churches.
The bill further prohibited exclusion from jury service on account of race.
The 1875 Act was ultimately struck down by a Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional.
The court pointed out that the 14th Amendment granted Congress the authority to regulate the behavior of states, not private individuals, which is why only states are allowed or forced to purchase Obamacare.
No, wait, that's not right. This is back in the day when people could still read the Constitution without adding their own words and redacting entire sections.
So the bill wasn't enforced, but its legacy continued to influence U.S. law.
In 1963, of course, nearly a century later, President John F. Kennedy introduced a civil rights bill that reenacted provisions contained in the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
After JFK's assassination, his successor, LBJ, got behind the bill in an address to U.S. Congress.
The monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964 was eventually signed into law by Johnson.
The Civil Rights Act declared it unlawful to, quote, fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Now, due to its subjective nature, the Civil Rights Act was enforced primarily through quotas, through a mandatory level of hiring.
After all, determining someone's reasons for discrimination is nearly impossible.
It could be that the racist is not hiring Or it could be because blacks lack the experience, they lack the education, they lack the experience in particular fields or whatever it is.
So it is really impossible to figure out or almost impossible to figure out whether someone's a racist unless you have some sort of direct mind meld and know exactly why they were making whatever hiring or firing decisions they were making.
So, for example, the quota system.
In 1973, a federal judge mandated that half of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Department's new employees must be either black or Puerto Rican.
The 1964 Act also expanded upon JFK's 1961 affirmative action policy.
Affirmative action or positive discrimination is the idea that employers should favor and provide special opportunities for members of discriminated groups, thus once more proving that a colorblind society is somewhat over the horizon.
Now, why are we talking about civil rights?
Well, civil rights were foundational in the development of immigration policies because non-discrimination clauses could be used as powerful leverage in congressional debate.
So, an 1875 law that was once considered unconstitutional and unenforceable became one of the most celebrated accomplishments of 20th century democracy.
The American idea Of a small government that stayed out of people's lives to protect their freedoms was now replaced by a government that could supervise private affairs in order to protect people's, quote, freedoms.
And this is a fundamental change in the Freedom Club, in the constitution of the Freedom Club, or the rules of the Freedom Club.
So the rules of the Freedom Club, originally, was something like, the government is passive.
So, Unless I initiate force, unless I steal, rape, murder, assault you, then the government doesn't do anything.
Maybe a couple of tariffs and taxes, a little army or whatever.
But the government sits there passively until Somebody initiates force or violates somebody else's freedoms.
And this changed to now become a proactive social engineering government, which is pretty much old-style, very primitive style of government.
So what changed in American society between 1875 and 1964?
What changed to the point where a once unconstitutional law became one of the most celebrated laws of the land?
Well, going back again to 1917, to the end of the old order, Europe had been pretty much at war since it first broke away from Pangaea, and for about a hundred years, with the exception of Crimea, the Crimean War, from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the start of the First World War in 1914, There was peace throughout Western Europe.
1914 to 1918, the First World War was so catastrophic, it actually destroyed almost down to the dollar all the wealth that had been generated through the Industrial Revolution.
One of the most horrifying Outcomes that occurred towards the end of the war was in 1917, of course, Vladimir Lenin and his communist Bolshevik party succeeded in overthrowing the Tsarist autocracy of Russia and replaced it with a communist government or communist dictatorship.
Now, this had a huge effect.
Let me just take a pause on the slides for a sec.
And this, of course, the takeover of Russia by communists in 1917, which very quickly, within a decade or two and a half, led to almost a third of the world being covered by the incredibly destructive autocracies and Totalitarian dictatorships of communism.
And according to the Black Book of Communism, which is a scholarly attempt to gather the corpses together under one very red hammer and sickle style umbrella, Communism was directly responsible for the deaths of between 94 million and 100 million people.
And this is quite conservative.
This is as much as can be verified.
And what happened was, how did communism come about?
Well, in In 1916, America was interested in coming into the war.
They ended up coming into the war in 1917, of course, after President Wilson said, there's no way we're going into the European conflict.
So they threw their might into the war for a variety of reasons we'll get into in another conversation.
So, what happened?
Well, the Germans, realizing that the entire weight of the undamaged U.S. economy was about to be thrown into the Western Front, knew that it could not fight the Russians on the Eastern Front at the same time, that it could only fight a one-front war if America came in.
Germany had not been invaded.
All the fighting pretty much had taken place in France and other of the Western countries.
And so Germany said, well, we have to take out the Russians on the...
So what they did was they funded Lenin and armed Lenin and sent him through Finland into Russia to Moscow where he overthrew the Tsarist regime and this was of course one of the unintended consequences, one of the evil genies out of the model that happened when America entered The First World War on the side of the British and the French.
That one of the responses was to take Russia out of the war by sending Lenin in to overthrow the Tsar.
And of course then Lenin ended the war in the German Eastern Front.
Took Russia out of the war and then with the amount of strength that America brought to the table on the Western Front...
The Allies were so strong that they were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which Germany would have ended up paying reparations up until the 1980s, and stripped it of territory, stripped it of its empire, and said, you can't have an army, you can't have an air force, barely any navy, barely an army, 100,000 people.
And partly to, as a result of this, partly to pay off the reparations that were demanded by the Allies, Germany ended up printing so much money that the Weimar hyperinflation took root in the 1920s and destroyed the German economy, which Germany ended up printing so much money that the Weimar hyperinflation took root in the 1920s and destroyed the German economy, which paved the way for Hitler to come Germany, of course, the Nazis were national socialists.
And so I just really want to point out that these are sort of the unintended consequences of foreign policy.
You simply don't know where the dominoes are going to land.
And the Cold War and the tens of millions of people killed under communism was a fairly direct result of America entering the war, which is why a non-interventionist foreign policy is argued for by a lot of people who've studied a lot of history.
You simply don't know how other people are going to react to your meddling, your endless meddling.
Okay, so after Lenin took over the Russian Empire, the U.S. Congress passed the 1921 Emergency Quota Act, a bill that proved in the long run the most important turning point in American immigration policy, according to American historian John Hyam.
Why? Why?
The 1921 Act introduced the immigration quota system and placed numeric limits on people coming from Europe.
Limiting immigration from the Old Continent, and Eastern Europe in particular, was supposed to decrease the influx of communist immigrants who would attempt to spread their ideology in America.
National socialism, as you can guess from the first word, is...
Fundamentally nationalistic in its focus.
It does not attempt to spread across the entire world.
It's not a world revolutionary ideology.
Communism as a class-based ideology sees the classes everywhere.
The bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and so on, sees the classes everywhere, and therefore it is a worldwide revolution.
Nobody particularly feared German immigrants coming over that they were going to try and spread Nazism in Germany, but it was the explicit goal of the Comintern, of the Communist International, to foment Communist overthrows of all governments all the way throughout the world.
And so when the Russians got in power and specifically declared this, the Communists got in power in Russia and specifically declared this to be their aim, well then, Americans felt nervous because it was an ideology that attempted to spread horizontally through the class system across the entire world.
Most of the immigration debate of the early 20th century was driven by the threat of communist infiltration and subversion, which was a justified fear, given how rapidly communism did spread throughout the world.
Up until 1965, which we'll get to in a little bit, nearly all immigration bills attempted to limit America's exposure to communist ideology, and this, of course, was part of McCarthyism as well, that Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon were attempting to expose the number of spies, communist spies, in the State Department.
And they were generally laughed at until the Soviet archives were declassified in the late 20th century and the truth behind a lot of what they said was in fact revealed.
Now, the Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted immigration of people from Southern and Eastern Europe.
And remember, prior to 1924, U.S. had an open border.
There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
But 90 years ago, a mere hair's breadth in human history.
Immigrants were only deported if they committed certain crimes.
However, the 1924 Act criminalized unlawful entry and created the Border Patrol to keep immigrants from entering the country.
So I just really want you to understand the degree to which meddling in foreign countries reduces freedoms at home, reduces freedoms within America, right?
So the fact that the US government entered the First World War, which triggered The communist overthrow in Russia, which then the communist Russian leadership under Lenin committed to sending infiltrators and subversive and communists over to America to start destabilizing and overthrowing capitalism.
Therefore, the borders have to go up in America.
Now, in 1920, after several decades of lobbying pressure, women's Christian groups and the suffragette movement were finally able to get their way, and the consumption and production of alcohol It was banned in the United States, and this went about as well as you can imagine if you've ever studied the war on drugs.
Demand for alcohol, of course, didn't disappear, so organized crime syndicates alongside entrepreneurial Mexicans started entering the country through the Mexican border, bringing alcoholic beverages with them.
In the eyes of the public, the southern U.S. border had to be closed to prevent alcohol from entering the country.
So, the 1924 Immigration Act established the Border Patrol in part to stop Mexicans from smuggling alcohol into the United States.
Indeed, most of the agency's work at the time was centered around preventing smugglers from entering the country.
And, of course, a lot of people died in shootouts between Border Patrol agents and whiskey bootleggers.
Elliot Ness, the guy who was portrayed in the movie The Untouchables, made about $2,400 a year as a prohibition police officer, and Al Capone offered him $2,000 a week to leave him be, so almost 50 times his annual salary.
So, agriculture and immigration, particularly illegal immigration, has been a closely woven U.S. subject, of course, since the 19th century.
Due to the 1882 Chinese and subsequent Asian bans, Mexican immigrants started entering the agricultural job market to fill in the shortage gaps.
Because U.S. farmers traditionally relied on the labor of Asian immigrants, but now they had to look elsewhere for employees.
Mexican workers, of course, started complaining about the abuse of their labor.
So in 1920, the Mexican government drafted a model contract that demanded U.S. ranchers provide contracts to Mexican immigrants, guaranteeing rate of pay, work schedule, place of employment, and other similar conditions.
When the border was closed in 1920, Mexican farm workers found themselves at the mercy of their employers.
Most of them were branded as illegal immigrants and had no access to any legal protections at all.
If the immigrants dared to organize a strike, they were simply deported.
Immigration laws then has now thus created a really cheap labor force for U.S. farmers who were also immune from any other worker protests because of the legal status of immigrants.
Now, let's talk about communism.
The Communist International, Comintern, was an international communist organization based in Moscow.
It began operating in 1919 under the supervision of the Soviet Communist Party, and its chief goal was spreading communism and establishing Soviet-style governments throughout the world.
Now, communism, really the opposite of the Freedom Club.
Communism doesn't particularly come from the Greek, Roman, Western Enlightenment tradition.
It generally comes from Jewish traditions.
So many, of course, of the founders of communism were Jews.
Jews were less than 2% of the Russian population, but more than 50% of the leaders of the Communist Party.
And, of course, a lot of them were in charge of concentration camps and so on later on under the Soviet regime.
Now, a few months later, the Communist Party of the USA was established as part of the Commentator Network and began operating as a subsidiary of the Communist Party in Russia.
Now, this is a real challenge to ye olde freedom club, because it is really like England during the Second World War allowing a Nazi Party with the dedication of overthrowing the British government and establishing a Nazi-style dictatorship in England Well, that's kind of challenging. Al-Qaeda party, will you vote for us?
In 1922, the Comintern held its fourth international congress and put the topic of African Americans on its agenda.
Communists and people on the left have traditionally been very positive towards the expansion of African American rights.
The following goal was established after discussions ended, quote, The Fourth Congress considers it essential to support all forms of the black movement which aim either to undermine or weaken capitalism and imperialism or to prevent their further expansion.
In other words, the communists got involved in the black power movement and black liberation movements in order to destabilize the free market, in order to destabilize capitalism, and to basically overthrow, in the long run, the American government.
Now, of course, a lot of blacks got caught up, not of course all, right?
A lot of blacks got caught up in communism as well, partly because there was a mistake, which a lot of people make, that they think slavery was somehow part of the free market.
And so they'd say, well, it was capitalism that got you enslaved.
It was the American government, the capitalist government, that kept you enslaved.
Well, the last part was true. The first part was not.
And you can look at my presentation, The Truth About Slavery, for more on this.
The Communist Party of the USA received a $300,000 subsidy for the purpose of spreading Soviet propaganda amongst black Americans.
And again, you can look at a lot of the famous black leaders, W.E.B. Dubois, Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, a lot of them outright or implicit communists or socialists, very much coming from the left.
Now, this is, of course, $300,000.
What does that mean now? Well, this is back when $300,000 meant quite a lot.
Over the following years, the Communist Party of the USA recruited and trained black communists and organized protests against the U.S. government.
Many black leaders were sent to Moscow for further education.
The party's subversive activities quickly attracted the eyes of the government and the newly formed FBI. The CP, Communist Party of the USA, also publicly advocated for civil rights and immigration reform.
And alongside the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, it was one of the most powerful driving forces behind the civil rights movement.
Communism quickly spread throughout the black population in America.
Now, of course, when you look at people like Thomas Sowell and so on, my favorite economist, who just happens to be black, a lot of blacks definitely openly and outwardly resisted the spread of communism and leftists and so on, but again, we're just talking about averages.
Many African Americans started their own communist organizations and began spreading the Soviet message in their own communities.
In the eyes of the public, a large portion of black Americans were communists.
Let's talk about the American Civil Liberties Union, which plays a pretty key role in the immigration debate in the 20th century.
So a fellow named Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1920, which was one year after the Communist Party of the United States was established.
The organization, the ACLU, quickly became one of the cornerstones of the 20th century civil rights movement in America, engaging in litigation against government bodies and providing legal protection for activists.
The Communist Party in America got in trouble with the U.S. government repeatedly, so the ACLU became its legal shield.
This led to a number of accusations of the ACLU being a communist organization.
Now, just to footnote this for my...
Lovely younger listeners, I mean, if you were born, I guess, any time after 1975 or 1980, it's hard to remember just how dangerous communism actually was, how murderous it was.
So the Nazis are considered responsible for the deaths of about 40 million people.
And, of course, the Holocaust is estimated at 6 million.
The communists as a whole are responsible for 100 million people.
So think Nazism two and a half times over.
And Nazism, unlike a nationalist movement or a Germanic-based movement, or an Aryan movement, was fundamentally everywhere.
So this would be, I guess, the equivalent of the Al-Qaeda or Muslim extremists infiltrating the U.S. government and wanting to turn it into a...
Sharia law-based Muslim state.
This would be pretty unpleasant for, I guess, people whose religious leanings are on my side of the fence.
Furthermore, there was an overlap between the ACLU and communist organizations in terms of members.
So Harry Ward was chairman of both the ACLU and the Communist American League Against War and Fascism.
So a lot of the ACLU's early leaders were communists, although at the time, no connection to the Soviet Union was ever proven to exist.
It was only after the Comintern archives were declassified That the ACLU's Soviet link came to light.
You can look up Alger Hiss, one of the best-named communist spies in the history of the known universe, for more on this.
But basically the Soviet or KGB archives were declassified and people got a chance to scan through them.
There's still tens of thousands of pages that probably have not been scanned, but this stuff was fairly well proven.
A 1931 letter from Roger Baldwin to a CPUSA chairman was found in the archives.
In it, Baldwin requested the American Communist Party to assist in his upcoming trip to Stalin's Russia.
Baldwin had also written a book called Liberty Under the Soviets.
After an earlier trip to the Soviet Union, he openly admitted in the book that he joined the Communist Party and supported his agenda.
And again, When you read communism, which, you know, I was taught by a Marxist professor when I was an undergraduate at Glendon College of York University, not a lot of Nazi professors to be found, but you can find Marxist professors everywhere.
There's a variety of reasons for that we'll touch on here.
But when you hear communists, you know, from a human death count and danger to non-communist countries, think Nazism on steroids.
I mean, imagine that an American civil liberties founder was an open Nazi who joined the Nazi party and so on.
Well, communists are even worse.
So, Baldwin said, I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause.
I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal.
I wanted what the communists wanted, right?
Imagine. Civil rights hero.
I don't regret being part of the Nazi tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause.
I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent guy.
I wanted what the Nazis wanted.
Well, innocent liberals are referenced to, I can't remember, I think it was Stalin who said that leftists or liberals in the United States are useful idiots.
In other words, they don't know what our final agenda is, but they're sentimental and foolish.
Of course, in the 1930s, a lot of intellectuals throughout the West made this pilgrimage to Moscow where they were shown these villages of supposedly healthy and happy people, actually prisoners, fed by starving other people for the purposes of making the Soviet Union look good, joined the sort of Shirley MacLaine tribute to Chinese dictatorships and so on.
So in 1940, prominent anti-communist congressman Howard Smith introduced the Alien Registration Act, which became known as the Smith Act after its passage.
So America was really losing the intellectual battle against communism.
If you look at the sort of ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, I think all but one or two of them have been enacted in America over the 20th century.
So America did not do a very good job Fighting against communism, and like all societies, when you can't win the battle intellectually, you turn hysterically to the power of the state, hoping that that will somehow solve the problem of the infiltration of ideas, which of course it can't. So under the Smith Act, immigrants were now required to register, and the advocacy for political subversion, such as the overthrow of the government, was outlawed.
CPUSA Chairman Gus Hall, alongside other communist advocates, was later convicted of violating the Smith Act.
In other words, the Communist Party of the USA was openly advocating the overthrow of the government.
up until 1940, it wasn't actually illegal.
The ACLU was one of the few organizations that fought, albeit unsuccessfully, against the passage of the act.
All racial limitations on immigrant nationalization were ended with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
But the quota system remained in place.
The 1952 Act further extended the government's authority to deport and discriminate against immigrants suspected to be communists.
This provision was met with a lot of criticism among left-wing organizations that would have welcomed such nascent murderers with open arms.
So, we talked a little bit earlier about the degree to which communism sprouted from or was birthed through Judaic traditions.
It's interesting to see, actually, the number of Jewish communists who were themselves the sons of rabbis, and this is also true for the Gentile communists who were the sons of priests, in my particular opinion.
I can't prove this, but I think that the smarter people in the world, particularly the sons of priests, they're kind of recognized in the 19th century.
That religion was waning.
The power of religion was waning.
And so those who are verbally adept manipulators needed another way to not really work for a living.
And so they kind of abandoned religion and then wanted to create an authoritarian structure similar to the church, but secular, which was a communist dictatorship.
And there's so many parallels between religion and communism.
Basically, you take God out and replace it with the state and so on.
You take the devil out and replace it with the bourgeoisie and you take the meek out and you replace them with the proletariat.
There's so many parallels. It's ridiculous.
So I would say out of Jewish and Gentile religious traditions came communism.
And so in response to Jewish opposition to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Democratic Congressman John Rankin stated, and I quote, They whine about discrimination.
Do you know who is being discriminated against?
The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation.
Communism is racial.
A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries I could name.
They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by.
And if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their communistic program on the Christian people of America, There is no telling what will happen to them here.
Now, this, of course, is explosive and volatile stuff.
I'll unpack it sort of briefly.
What does he mean? He says communism is racial.
Well, by racial, he means the Jewish race, right?
He's saying communism comes from the Jews.
A Jewish minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries.
And what happened was, of course, after...
The communists seized power.
Now, again, not all communists are Jews.
Of course, not all Jews are communists.
I mean, the people I admire most intellectually, in general, tend to be Jews, by coincidence or not.
And they're also very anti-communist.
So, of course, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard and so on, wonderfully eloquent Jews in defense of the free market.
But he's saying communism is racial.
In other words, there is such a disproportionate amount of Jews in the communist dictatorships that he viewed it as a largely Jewish entity.
And when they got control of Russia, this group that a lot of people perceived as largely or exclusively Jewish began a program of stealing from the Christians, killing the Christians and so on.
Millions of Christians died as a result of collectivization and famines and in the gulags and so on.
So there is this concern, and again, the degree to which it is valid is certainly arguable, but there is this concern in the minds of a lot of Christian Americans, and this was of course the case in Germany as well, There was this concern that communism equals Judaism, and when communists, aka Jews, get in power, then a lot of Christians are not long for this world.
So this is sort of what he's talking about.
This has all vanished from history, and not because it's entirely false.
Again, the degree of influence is arguable.
We'll talk about more facts here, but I guess some of the Christians aren't quite as good at telling stories.
Winston Churchill wrote, I've still got to work on my Churchill.
So, In the 1950s, at least half of about the 50,000 CPUSA members were Jewish.
So when people thought communism, they thought Judaism.
Again, it's, you know, two overlapping circles, but they certainly weren't separate.
According to California State University professor Kevin MacDonald, quote, merely citing percentages of Jewish leaders probably does not adequately indicate the extent of Jewish influence in the CPUSA, since active efforts were made to recruit Gentiles as a sort of window dressing to conceal the extent of Jewish influence in the movement.
The Jewish involvement with communist organizations greatly worried American Jews, and according to prominent Jewish historian Arthur Liebman, quote, the fight against the stereotype of communist Jew became a virtual obsession with Jewish leaders and opinion makers throughout America.
The public's association between Jews and communism was really hurting the powerful Jewish lobby that was pushing for liberal immigration policies.
American Jews poured enormous resources into lobbying because a lot of them, in the post-war period and pre-war period, wanted to bring over family members who were fleeing Hitler's and later Stalin's persecutions.
So, right, the communists take over in Russia, and then Americans start putting up barriers against people coming in from Eastern Europe because they're afraid of communists coming in.
And then, when Stalin began persecuting the Jews, and I think all of Stalin's wives were Jews, so I don't think he was particularly anti-Semitic, but he was concerned about a Jewish counter-revolution after he took power after the death of Lenin in the late 1920s.
And so he started persecuting, not the Jews, but who he felt as a counter-revolutionary group.
And so then the Jews wanted to bring their relatives over, of course, and who wouldn't, right?
Fleeing Hitler and Stalin's persecutions in Europe.
So, go back to the Civil Rights Act and see how this all comes together.
The mounting pressure from civil rights protests, which was starting to turn violent, forced the issue of civil rights into the U.S. Congress.
However, many politicians were still upholding the freedom club, the limited government principle, and argued that the law should be kept out of private affairs, i.e.
who you hire and so on.
We would never, I mean just to put this in perspective, we would never pass a law, I think sanely pass a law, that said that white women have to marry black men proportional to the black men in the neighborhood, or black men have to marry white women proportional to the racial demographic of the neighborhood.
I mean that would be a violation of freedom of association.
And, you know, if black men want to marry black women and white women want to marry space aliens, that's, you know, up to each individual.
Well, that argument, of course, holds equally true in the economic sphere when it comes to who you're going to hire and who you're going to work with.
The conflict between proponents and opponents of the Civil Rights Act led to a series of filibusters that lasted for months.
In an attempt to slow down the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Howard Smith, the Democratic congressman behind the Smith Act, introduced an amendment that proposed equal employment rights for women.
Smith and a lot of his colleagues were deeply concerned about communist ideology within the proposed legislation, so they were actively trying to strike down the bill.
Ironically, women's rights were considered an important part of the Civil Rights Act, and its passage was accelerated instead.
So great were the fears of a communist agenda within the legislation that the bill had a provision that explicitly allowed employers to discriminate against communists and anyone affiliated with the ideology.
At the time, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was also warning Congress about communists who were involved with the civil rights movement and were manipulating it from within.
For example, Stanley Leveson, a friend and political advisor of Martin Luther King Jr., Now, we come to perhaps the biggest transition in the demographics of American immigration.
The 1965 Hot Seller Act, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, was a monumental piece of legislation that fundamentally changed U.S. immigration patterns.
With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the bill faced very little opposition because of course you could put quota systems in and you could argue for all of that stuff.
Quotas based on nationality were abolished and were replaced by a preference system that focused on skills and family relations.
Immigrants were allowed to invite their families and relatives to the country.
Now, this, of course, is partly just rampant vote buying because, I mean, lots of people want their relatives to come to America, and so they'll vote for you if that's what you are proposing.
During debates in Congress, supporters of the bill predicted that it would not change the ethnic makeup of the country.
And like most political debates, you simply apply the inverse negative filter to the statement and make it reverse itself, and you're probably going to end up somewhere closer to the truth.
Senator Kennedy, recently deceased, I believe, of a brain tumor, called the lion of the Senate.
He proclaimed, the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants.
It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.
It will not relax the standards of admission.
It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
Well, of course, when it comes to immigration, 6% of lawyers are immigrants, so people who are lawyers arguing for letting immigrants in aren't facing a whole lot of threat.
But, say, maids and so on in hotels, more than 50% of them are immigrants, so it's a little different for those who are less economically or politically privileged.
After the Hart-Seller Act became law, immigration trends turned upside down.
Now, remember, we're talking about the Freedom Club, and the Freedom Club generally comes from Western Europe.
Now, really, really wish to emphasize that the Freedom Club is not racial.
Freedom Club. Like, when I go to a conference and I meet a like-minded black fellow, I have far more in common with him than I do with a Marxist white person.
So, it is really around beliefs, understanding of political philosophy and economics and really the history of philosophy, philosophy itself.
And there are some cultural elements that may be associated with race, but fundamentally it has nothing to do with race.
It is simply about an acceptance of belief systems, but they do get transmitted from parent to child, and of course parent to child has racial elements.
So at the beginning of the 20th century, 86% of immigrants to America came from Europe, which is...
Kind of the Freedom Club. But by its end, 82% came from Asia and Latin America.
Now, again, I've spoken at libertarian conferences or conferences in Brazil and so on, traveled throughout Asia and some of South and Central America.
Wonderful people there.
Again, you have to understand.
If you don't understand statistics, then don't bother saying, well, I know people from Asia who are very free market.
So, in general, the Freedom Club is Europe.
The beginning of the 20th century, 86% of immigrants come from Europe.
By the end of the 20th century, 82% come from Asia and Latin America.
Can you maintain the Freedom Club?
If you get people coming into this society who don't have the cultural history, the multi-millennia, blood, sweat, and tears cultural history of the Freedom Club.
Because European immigrants had already established their families in the United States, and the post-war economic growth in Europe didn't create much of an incentive for Europeans to leave the old continent.
Asians and Mexicans, however, saw this as an opportunity to bring their families to the United States, creating an immigration sponsorship cycle, so those who were invited and became citizens would later invite their own family members and relatives.
So overall, the 1965 Hart-Seller Act resulted in a 300% increase in immigration, most of it coming from Asia and Latin America.
Now, the issue of communism came up again because one of the key supporters of the 1965 bill, Jewish Senator Jacob Javits, was suspected of being a communist.
In 1956, Javits testified in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security after he was accused of seeking political help from communists.
The information came from former CPUSA leader, Bel Adad.
Javits claimed he wasn't aware that the people he associated with were communists and the charges were dropped.
Now, just again, a sort of brief footnote.
This goes back to one of the predictions of Marxist, scientific Marxism, socialism.
So, Marx was very specific about that cultured societies, countries, they had to go through feudalism, then they had to go through the Industrial Revolution and had to become capitalistic, and only then could they become communistic.
But the fact is, is that industrialization makes countries extremely resistant to the spread of overt Marxism, you know, creeping socialism, blah, blah, blah, generally works fairly well, the sort of Fabian progressive style of incremental change.
That works fairly well.
But overt Marxism, to go through the Industrial Revolution tends to make you pretty immune to it.
So if you look at the countries where communism actually took hold, Russia and China, North Korea and North Vietnam, Cambodia, and to some degree Mexico, Well, these are not industrialized countries, whereas the countries that were industrialized tend to be not too friendly to Marxism.
So when you go to Asia or you go to South America or Central, you get people who are culturally more We're good to go.
Countries or cultures or histories where there's more susceptibility to communism and less exposure to free market thoughts, and we'll talk about that in a second.
Okay, let's go back. Lawyer and activist William Rusher summarized Congress's suspicions, quote,"...it is simply not possible to believe that Jacob Javits' communist contacts in 1945 and 1946 were all totally innocent." But was he a communist sympathizer, as some of his critics believe, or was he merely a garden-variety opportunist, as his more candid defenders contend?
Senator Kennedy, the driving force behind the Hart Seller Act, was closely monitored by the FBI since 1961 because he arranged to meet up with local communists during a trip across Latin America.
And again, can you imagine a British politician meeting up with Nazi groups during the war?
This is during the height of the Cold War.
This is shortly before the Bay of Pigs invasion.
According to declassified KGB documents, Senator Edward Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, would also seek Soviet help in undermining President Reagan's defense policies nearly two decades later.
And if you are not shocked, you are not listening.
Rewind and hear that again, please.
President, sorry, Senator Edward Kennedy would also seek Soviet help in undermining President Reagan's defense policies nearly two decades later.
Shocking and appalling.
Literally, this would be like a senator meeting with al-Qaeda to help undermine efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, let's look at the switch in immigrant demographics since the 60s.
During the 19th century, most of the immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
The Bowling Game Treaty resulted in an influx of poor Chinese workers, as we said, in the later half of the century.
The beginning of the 20th century saw an increase in immigrants fleeing a series of revolutions in Russia.
Mexicans started entering the country as farm workers, filling in the shortage created by the Chinese Exclusion Act.
So again, these are not particularly natural human migrations.
They are... I don't know if you ever saw, I think it's an airplane, it's an old movie where people are in an airport and you hear, you know, the flight to Taiwan has been moved from gate A to gate B and everyone's like, they go that way and then you hear, now it's been moved to gate C and they all reverse go,
this is the human herd is fleeing these random impositions of laws and opportunities and there's a little bit more freedom here and now this has been closed off, now this has been opened up and everyone's just charging around trying to find Two inches of square freedom-based breathing space.
And again, this is not organic movement.
This is fleeing the fires of unjust laws for the most part.
After the 1965 Heart Cellar Act, most immigrants came from Latin America and Asia, primarily Mexico, Cuba, Cambodia, and China.
A lot of them were trying to escape tyrannical communist governments in their regions.
A large wave of Europeans started entering the country when the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late 1980s.
Most came from the former Eastern Bloc.
So, again, sorry if you're just listening in audio.
I can't believe you're not looking at my face.
So this is from the mid-19th century through 2000.
So here you can see orange is Europe, and Europe, of course, is the vast majority of the immigration that occurs up until the Second World War, post-Second World War period.
Latin America is pretty tiny.
Asia and Africa and other, because Canada, Is virtually, well, a bit larger and stays relatively small throughout the 20th century.
The big growth is in Latin America and the big growth is in Asia.
And Orange is the Freedom Club.
Again, to put things in a very general way, Orange is the Freedom Club.
How well is America, founded as the Freedom Club, going to fare with people coming in with no history of Freedom Club thought?
After the World War II ended, the US government enacted several legislations that helped refugees to settle in the country and gain citizenship.
There was, of course, a very toxic spread of leftist ideology.
A lot of leftists fled from...
Hitlerian Germany, and of course Hitler is generally put on the right, but I think there's very strong evidence and very good arguments to say that he was actually on the left and that it was not a war of opposition between the communists and the Marxists in 1930s in Germany, which was touch and go a lot of times, the brown shirts versus the red shirts.
They're very close. They're very close.
The Nazis were called beefsteaks, right?
The brown on the outside, brown shirts, Nazism on the outside, red on the inside, communists on the inside.
And people moved back and forth between these two ideologies fairly easily.
The way to look, I think, accurately at Nazism versus communism is it's just two rival gangs, two rival mafia gangs, two rival criminal gangs.
I mean, they may fight bitterly, but not because they're good versus evil, right?
They're just evil versus evil. But what happened was a lot of leftist people, a lot of leftist intellectuals fled Europe in the lead-up to the Second World War, landed at educational facilities within America, and then America paid for all the soldiers or the soldiers who wanted through the GI Bill to go and get educated in universities,
thus spreading the virus that to some degree destroyed Europe into American thought, which then continues to destroy America along with a lot of help from just about everyone else.
Between 1946 and 2004, count them 4 million people were given U.S. citizenship due to their refugee or asylee status.
Most of them fled to the U.S. to escape communist takeovers in Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China.
Fearful of communistic influence, Congress was initially hesitant to pass a bill allowing displaced persons or DPs in the country.
A 1946 study by the Republican Steering Committee concluded, quote, Many of those who seek entrance into this country have little concept of our form of government.
Many of them come from lands where communism has had its first growth and dominates the political thought and philosophy of the people.
Certainly it would be a tragic blunder to bring into our midst those imbued with a communistic line of thought when one of the most important tasks of this government today is to combat and eradicate communism from this country.
The American Jewish Committee, the AJC, a powerful lobby group, warned its members, quote, both in the country and in Congress, there is a stubborn opposition reflecting distrust of foreigners in general, and to a shocking extent of Jews in particular.
It is to be feared that if the legislation cannot be sidetracked entirely, an attempt may be made to shape its terms as to reduce the number of Jewish displaced persons who could benefit by it.
A bill was finally passed allowing these displaced persons in the country after propaganda campaigns by the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons and subsequent pressure from media and lobby groups.
Quote, Congress received more mail, most of it favorable, on aiding the displaced persons than on any subject since Prohibition, according to Leonard Dinnerstein, Professor of History at the University of Arizona.
So again, on the left, they were quite happy to have people who had grown up among communist regimes coming into the country if they were pro-Marxist, because again, it reinforces the spread and growth of that.
And of course, these are people who, obviously grown up communists, no exposure to free market thought or the Freedom Club principles that go back thousands of years in European culture.
Refugees and asylees were now accepted if they were fleeing from a communist regime, but others who tried to enter the US were sent to Guantanamo or deported back to their countries.
The US Department of State argued that issues in non-communist countries were economic in nature, not political, as if the two can be separated.
And an independent institute study found that welfare consumption amongst refugees and asylees was an extraordinary 33%, 33% of them on welfare.
Overall, people from the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba represented only 11% of permanent immigrants, yet accounted for almost 40% of foreign-born welfare costs.
There is a massive system of wealth redistribution underway throughout the West, which is...
A challenge to the historical growth of the Freedom Club.
And so the question is, when people come into the country, are they going to fit the demographic of people who are going to receive government money or those who are going to pay government money?
Education has a lot to do with it.
So people who have high school or less tend to be on the receiving end, and people who have bachelor's or master's or higher tend to be on the paying end.
And so when immigrants come in who are less educated, as we'll get to, It's a challenge for the redistribution.
And again, I'd love to live in a world where I didn't care.
I don't care where my neighbors' four streets over move to or from.
Go to New Zealand. Go to Timbuktu.
Come live in my basement.
That's fine with me. I would love to live in a world where we don't care where people move.
But because... There are massive taxation and money printing and debt-based mechanisms for transferring wealth, both from us and from our children, to other people.
Well, now it matters.
We live in a world where it doesn't matter.
Let's look at these refugees and asylees.
Granted lawful permanent resident status.
So, as you can see, 200,000 or so in 1946 and 1950, and it grows.
And again, we put oranges Europe, green Latin America, red Asia, Purple Africa and black other.
Oh yeah, we're not making Africa black babies.
So, as you can see, it really explodes and goes a lot to Asia and so on.
Now, here's an interesting fact, which I think we should really ponder and mull.
In a 1913 article, Joseph Stalin, who was then a member of the Bolshevik Party, defined a nation as, quote, a historically constituted A stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture.
A common, common, common culture.
that's what Joseph Stalin said that a nation was so if you wish to destroy a nation again according to Stalin's definition if you want to overthrow capitalist America you need to destroy the aspects that underlie people's sense of a national identity, a national culture, a national history a national integrity Lenin also noted that quote the ruling classes should be passing through a governmental crisis which would draw even the most backward masses into politics
A symptom of every real revolution is a rapid tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the number of representatives of the toiling and oppressed masses who have hitherto been apathetic, capable of waging the political struggle.
Weaken the government and make it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly.
So, the splitting of cultural identity, the provoking of crisis is foundational to the destruction of a free market and republic-based society.
In his 1958 book, The Naked Communist, ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen, I assume no relation to Mark, Claimed that one of communism's goals was to, quote, use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
His list of alleged communist goals was read into the congressional record in 1963.
So if you develop a time machine and you want to fall asleep, yet still be strangely stimulated, then you will go to that place in that time.
So, of course, when you invite a wide variety of sometimes opposing cultures to live in a particular geographical area, it's called balkanization, and it ends wonderfully.
It's called multiculturalism, and that has been promoted as a core value in the West for many decades.
But it's kind of showing its cracks now as research and experience piles up.
In 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that The approach to build a multicultural society and to live side by side and to enjoy each other has failed.
Utterly failed. Immigrants were simply not integrating in German society.
I mean, good heavens. The Jews are a fantastic example, right?
5,000 years, what is it, 15 million Jews in the world?
They don't integrate, right? They keep very much within their own culture and for the most part.
And of course, there's a lot of pressure for Jews to marry other Jews and so on.
So, it's...
It's pretty obvious that the stronger the culture, the less integrated it's going to be.
Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade-long study.
On how diversity affects social trust.
Now, again, trying not to make this too long.
Ha! Failed! But social trust is one of these wealth-generating and wealth-sustaining mechanisms that's nearly invisible.
And people don't even notice it's gone, right?
Roads, obviously. Roads vanished and suddenly everyone's like, dude, my car is useless.
Social trust is one of these ways in which economic growth is assured.
Like, for instance, there are three people who work at Free Domain Radio.
Maybe you could be next.
Three people who work at Free Domain Radio here with me.
We don't have any contracts.
We don't even have handshakes.
We just kind of talk and we just make those arrangements.
And the fact that we all have social trust and we trust each other, even though there's a wide variety of cultures in the group among us, We all trust each other.
We share the same values. If we had to have lawyers and contracts and suspiciously guarding and eyeing things and so on, that would be hugely inefficient.
And the degree to which people don't understand how other cultures work, don't understand their values, don't understand where you sit or what you do at dinner, do you burp or shake hands, is very complicated and affects a lot of social trust.
The diminishment of social trust harms the economy fundamentally.
It produces a lot of useless overhead like lawyers.
Even when adjusting for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of social trust overall, even within one's own race.
So the more racially diverse a community is, even within races, within blacks or Asians or whites, there is a loss of social trust overall.
He says, When you get a significantly racially diverse community, he says, we hunker down.
We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined.
And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us.
In diverse communities, we don't even trust people who do look like us.
Ethologist Frank Salter writes, quote, More ethnically homogenous nations are better able to build public goods, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, and are more resistant to external shocks.
Now, when we thought of making this a long presentation, we put a couple of slides in on the degree to which ethnic disparities in a geographical area produce horrible conflicts and losses.
We'll move that to the notes section where you'll find at the bottom of the description of the video on the podcast.
So, let's look at a scatterplot.
This is violence and diversity.
So this is, from 2010, ethnic diversity, which is at the bottom, the ethnic diversity index per state, to violent crime rate per 100,000 people.
And it's a pretty strong correlation, as you can see.
There's nothing in the top left. In other words, there's no place in America where there's low ethnic diversity and high crime rates.
And there's almost nobody on the bottom right.
In other words, there's almost no place in the US where there's high ethnic diversity but low violent crime rate.
Look, we're tribal animals.
We are tribal animals. It'd be great if we could outgrow it and through the spread of philosophy, and we'll talk about this at the end, that's the goal, to overcome tribalism with reason and evidence.
But right now, we are and have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years as tribal animals.
And we can meet philosophically in terms of values, right?
Scientists don't really care about multiculturalism because they're all using the scientific method, or mathematicians, or engineers, computer scientists.
Nobody cares because there's a common methodology.
But for most cultures, there's not.
And so it's easier to prey upon out-group members than it is to prey upon in-group members.
That's just the reality of the tribal-based society.
We are dogs, not cats.
Let's look at ethnic diversity and property crime.
Again, this is from 2010. Slightly wider but still strongly correlated.
There's no place with low ethnic diversity that has high property crimes.
And there's almost no place with the others, where there's high ethnic diversity and low property crimes.
As ethnic diversity tends to increase, Property crimes and violent crimes tend to increase, which is one of the reasons why people resist the influx of other cultures into their own culture.
It's not bigotry.
Maybe it is, but there's good reasons behind it.
It doesn't explain away, and it's certainly not justifying any kind of bigotry or racism here, but there are practical reasons as to why you may not want a jumble of other cultures in your neighborhood because it is going to degrade the quality of your life in general and on average.
Political scientist and author Samuel P. Huntington described multiculturalism as basically an anti-Western ideology.
According to Huntington, multiculturalism has, quote, attacked the identification of the United States with Western civilization, denied the existence of a common American culture, and promoted racial, ethnic, and other subnational cultural identities and groupings.
And this is sort of what I've been talking about.
Again, I'm particularly interested in the Freedom Club because if the Freedom Club is established, I don't care where people move.
If people are free, if there's not this massive redistribution state, if there's not the capacity for majorities to impose their will on minorities through the voting mechanism, move where you want.
I've got better things to do than worry about that.
But this is sort of what I've been talking about.
In his 2013 book, The Diversity Illusion, journalist Ed West argued, quote, advocates of multiculturalism argue that immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence as well as the bonds of community.
This is perfectly reasonable.
But if this is the case, why not the same for natives too?
If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better amongst themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable?
In 2014, this guy is from the left, his Labour MP and XPM from England, Tony Blair said, quote, the battles of this century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology like those of the 20th century, but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious differences.
No! I aim to do what I can to overcome that through providing people a methodology of reason and evidence that is going to diminish culture and cause us to join, in reality, a happy and common humanity of rational beliefs and philosophy rather than irrational beliefs and culture.
So to what degree are certain cultures or belief systems incompatible?
Well, I would argue irrational culture plus irrational culture incompatible.
Rational culture plus irrational culture incompatible.
Rational culture, rational culture, yay!
Compatible. So the goal is, of course, to spread reason.
Let's... Ooh, we are dragging ourselves up to the present.
On May 12, 2005, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate.
The bill proposed an increase in border security as well as a path for the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country to gain legal status.
Now... You may remember way back in the day, I think it was 2.7 million people in the 80s were granted green cards, granted citizenship by President Ronald Reagan.
They said, this is a one-time thing, and after this we're going to enforce the illegal immigrant laws.
Well, if it happens again, then all you're doing is encouraging people to come into the country, and since basically the laws have not been enforced, basically the deal is never going to come true in the future as it didn't in the past.
A few months later, the U.S. House introduced a parallel bill, the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which proposed the building of a new 700-mile wall along the Mexican border, hiring 10,000 new Border Patrol officers, building new detention facilities, and further criminalizing illegal immigrants and anyone who hires or helps them.
Can you taste the freedom?
A few more laws! America is already the country that has the most laws of any country in the world, and I would argue throughout history, a few more laws, a few more regulations, and freedom is almost perfected.
Both bills were foundational to all future immigration reform proposals, even though neither became law.
The core issue between Democrat and Republican proposals is the legal status of unauthorized immigrants.
So, what is happening now?
Well, June 15, 2012.
The Obama administration, a few months before the 2012 presidential election, announced in an executive action that young illegal immigrants who meet select criteria will be allowed to work and won't be subject to deportation.
Throwing wide the Elysium gates to the American economy.
Obama told reporters, quote, See, he knows! he knows!
Who is a risk to national security or public safety?
He just knows.
How does he know? He's Obama.
Don't ask. April 16, 2013, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act was introduced into the U.S. Senate.
President Obama expressed his support for the proposed legislation, saying that it aligned with his hopes for legalizing approximately 11 million illegal immigrants.
The act passed the Senate a month later.
However, the U.S. House of Representatives is yet to consider passing it or introducing a parallel bill.
June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require voters to present citizenship proof, effectively opening U.S. elections to illegal immigrants.
See, you have to have a license to catch a fish, hunt a deer, drive a car, but voting on how the U.S. government acts and uses its immense power, well, which...
So, as we talked about at the beginning, starting October 2013, the number of unattended children and youths showing up at the Mexican border rapidly increased.
On average, the number is 5,000, but as of June 2014, it has already surpassed 53,000.
According to immigration experts, the increase follows an outbreak of gang and drug cartel violence within several Central American countries.
Recently released Immigration and Customs Enforcement data also suggests that immigrant children might be drawn to the US because of Obama's 2012 deportation policy.
Furthermore, 95% of surveyed immigrants claimed they were coming to the US because they were promised a permission to legally stay in the country until their cases were reviewed.
July 1, 2014 President Obama announced his intention to bypass Congress, thus exceeding his authority, because Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives keep stalling immigration reforms.
He cited the illegal immigrant children crisis as a catalyst for his decision.
However, the Republicans who are projected to control both the Senate and the House after the 2014 elections accuse Obama of trying to import Democratic votes.
Is that right? Is that true?
Could it be that the Democrats are interested in importing a political base to maintain their hold on power?
Well, on the Republican side, many accuse Democrats of modeling their policies with the goal of boosting the party's failing and falling approval ratings.
By appealing to both legal and illegal immigrants, Democrats can gain additional votes that would give them an edge over their political opponents.
Is there any merit to this accusation?
So the argument is... The Democrats cannot win the war of ideas, so basically they have to appeal to two major groups, I guess three, right?
So, one is public sector workers, right, whose forced union dues are used to fund overwhelmingly Democrat coffers for campaigns.
Number two is immigrants and illegal immigrants, and number three, of course, is to some degree women.
So, is there any truth to this?
A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of Latino immigrants found that amongst unauthorized immigrants, 31% identify as Democrats and only 4% as Republicans.
A Center for Immigration Studies paper examining voter patterns over nine elections in the 100 largest counties revealed that a 1% increase in immigrants resulted in an average of almost a 0.6% drop in Republican votes.
During the 2012 election, out of the top 20 states with the largest percentage of immigrant population, Obama won in 17.
So that's quite a lot.
The only exceptions were Texas, Arizona and Georgia, which are traditionally Republican states.
According to statistical analysis, if the 11 million illegal immigrants had been given the vote during the 2012 election, Obama would have easily secured key swing states like Florida, Colorado, and Nevada.
If Democrats become dominant in these states, their presidential candidates will have a significant edge over the GOP or the Republican competition.
So here's another scattergraph for you.
So Obama votes per state and state immigrant population.
Again, a very strong correlation.
There is no state which had a high immigrant population and a low vote for Obama.
Conversely, there are no states.
With a lot of votes for Obama that had a low immigrant population.
So yes, of course, Obama and the Democrats can count.
The immigrants, because they don't come from the Freedom Club, are overwhelmingly going to vote for the progressive-slash-socialist-slash-Marxist-fueled ideology of the Democrats.
A 2010 poll revealed that 86% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, and 76% of Independents agreed with the statement that, quote, illegal immigrants do more to weaken the U.S. economy because they don't all pay taxes but use public services.
A Cato Institute analysis of Census Bureau's 2012 Current Population Survey Found that low-income non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, received 42% less in social benefits compared to equally poor citizens.
However, this difference can be explained by the fact that non-citizens don't have full access to over 80 federal welfare programs.
In 2010, according to a Heritage Foundation study, the average illegal immigrant household cost US taxpayers $14,387.
the study also claims that illegal immigrants currently receive social benefits amounting to 54.5 billion dollars more than they pay in taxes now this would be a much more pressing issue for the voting population as a whole
if america and the western world as a whole were not drugged and stupefied by the twin morphines of government funding which is to overprint the money that's causing inflation in the long run where people blame shopkeepers not the fed and through debt right so these bills are not coming due to the american taxpayers They are really accumulating and allowing their children to be sold to largely Chinese overlords in the future.
A report from the Treasury Department's Inspector General revealed that in 2010, following legislative changes made by President Obama, 2.3 million people without Social Security numbers claimed $4.2 billion in child tax credit refunds, roughly $1,800 per person.
For comparison, the 2005 amount was $924 million and was distributed to just under 800,000 people, or about $1,200 per person.
Democrats are still resisting Republicans' push to stop these payments.
It's really nice when you can get the unborn through national debt to pay for your vote buying.
A recent U.S. Department of Labor study noted that the perception that immigrants take jobs away from workers in the U.S. is the most persistent fallacy about immigration in popular thought.
Now, I want to be clear about this.
If you are a farm worker, then lots of illegal immigrants are going to drive down wages, right?
So there's a lot of complaints about income disparity growing at the moment, of course.
Since the government from the 1960s had the goal through the Great Society of closing the gaps in income and making it a more egalitarian society, naturally it has spread because government programs almost always achieve the opposite of their stated goals.
So for certain people, when you get floods of illegal immigrants in, or even legal immigrants, then...
You are at a disadvantage when it comes to them driving down wages and increasing wage disparity.
So if you're poor and uneducated and lots of poor and uneducated people come flooding into the country, they compete for what you do.
For the rich people and the educated people who make government policy, they're not applying for a lot of cotton-picking jobs, right?
But on the other hand, immigration...
It was at a record high during one of the most prosperous times of the U.S., the mid-19th and early 20th century.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate during the first decade of the 20th century, the peak of immigration, was 3.7%.
So even with thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of people coming in every year, unemployment was 3.7%.
For comparison, unemployment was 8.1% in August 2012.
So the job market, of course, is elastic, not fixed.
One of the great errors that people make about the economy is assuming that there's a fixed amount of dollars, and if someone else gets more, someone else has to get less.
Or the CEO is making a lot of money, and that has to be taken out of the mouths of the workers.
This is not a fixed amount of money.
The job market is elastic.
While immigrants may displace native citizens from certain sectors, they also create jobs.
By virtue of becoming consumers in the U.S. economy.
And entrepreneurial immigrants actually create jobs for both foreign and domestic workers.
So, we can look at the comparison in the post-feminist period.
If large numbers of immigrants entering the job market cause unemployment, this phenomenon should be observed with every expansion of the workforce.
For example, the massive influx of female workers during the 20th century should have, by this theory, caused unemployment to skyrocket.
In reality, the job market simply expanded to accommodate its new entrants.
Little known fact, when the GIs were coming back to the American economy after the Second World War, the government was scrambling to create an agency to help place them and get their jobs.
And because there were so many people coming back, by the time the agency got up and running, everyone had come back to found a job.
So even when huge numbers of men come back to start working at the end of a war, the economy works fine, if you leave it alone to do its thing.
In terms of job opportunities, immigrants tend to fall into two categories.
Very high-skilled labor, such as science and engineering, and very low-skilled labor in the agricultural and service industries.
This largely complements the U.S. workforce because most citizens fall into the mid-range of the skill bell curve.
They can do better work than maids, but they can't do as good a work as an expert engineer.
Now jobs, are they going to be taking away jobs from Americans?
Jobs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, also known as the STEM fields, are increasing three times faster than jobs in the rest of the economy.
Yet not enough U.S. students are pursuing degrees in STEM because they're hard.
It is estimated that by 2018 there will be a shortage of almost a quarter million advanced degree STEM workers.
According to a 2014 Q1 report by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, There are more than a million international students enrolled in US schools.
While business-related degrees are the most popular, 35% of those students, or more than a third, are pursuing degrees in STEM disciplines.
These students could be starting businesses or contributing to their technological innovation in the U.S. However, they tend to leave the country upon graduation due to immigrant policy concerns.
Great! We'll train them in needed jobs that provide jobs for other Americans and then force them out of the country because we are landing a rat's maze of bureaucratic, nightmarish, Kafkaesque futures on their heads.
Okay, so here's another chart.
Ooh, a line and a fill.
No scatters this time, my friends.
So real GDP per capita is the red line going up, and these are the number of immigrants.
Not really any significant correlations there, and during times of high immigration, right?
So this is the time of the greatest, one of the greatest migrations in human history that wasn't actively the result of glaciers or massive hordes of saber-toothed tigers.
You have one of the greatest wealth growths from like, what, 500 bucks a year to...
$8,000 a year, one of the most amazing explosions, in fact the most amazing explosion of wealth in human history, mostly human history.
It's just subsistence, eat what you kill, you're eating toenails come March.
But here we had a growth in the economy as a result of the free market that's staggering and wonderful and the whole reason we're having this conversation during a time of massive immigration.
So the idea that immigration is bad for the economy in a free market environment is not sustainable.
The degree to which immigration can be bad in a welfare state democracy, well, that's a little bit more defensible, but then the problem is not immigration, right?
In 2010, about 50% of immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador didn't speak English well or at all.
The average figure for all immigrants is 30%.
So, just looking at the free market aspect of the Freedom Club, which is one of the most important aspects, how much free market literature is available in people's native language?
Well, most of it is in English, a smaller percentage in French and German, but not a lot of it in Portuguese and Spanish and other languages.
According to a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics current population survey, about 28% of immigrants aged 25 to 65 haven't completed high school education compared to about 7% for natives.
So that's very bad, right?
That's very bad indeed.
Because that's four times the number of immigrants who haven't completed high school and therefore are going to be consuming a lot more than they produce, consuming services a lot more than they produce in taxes.
In California, immigrants with less than a high school education account for 73% of low education population.
Furthermore, 25% of immigrants have attained at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 34% of native residents in the state.
I mean, when you get lots of people who don't speak your language coming into the country, what happens to educational quality and standards with the requirements to teach in multiple languages?
64% of immigrants from Southwest Asia and India have attained a bachelor's or more advanced degree, compared to 7% for Latin America.
Let's look at the school dropout rate for 100 students.
Foreign-born over 15%, children of foreign-born parents 9%, children of native-born parents 4%.
So, given that school dropout is a significant predictor of...
A lack of success. There are three things you need to do to get into the middle class.
Finish high school, get a job and keep it for at least a year, and don't get pregnant until you're married.
Don't have a kid until you're married. Then you're pretty much set.
So here, one of the indicators is pretty bad for that.
Okay, let's talk about why some of these countries In a sense, encouraging or allowing people, their citizens, to come to the U.S. Well, in 2006, Latin American immigrants were estimated to have sent about $45 billion in remittances out of more than $500 billion total income.
About 10% of the income of immigrants is sent back to the home country, and that is...
Huge for some of these countries.
In 2012, remittances represented 16.5% of El Salvador's entire gross domestic product, 10% of Guatemala's, 15.7% of Honduras's, and 2% of Mexico's.
Central American leaders are urging Washington to let immigrants stay in the U.S. because they offer a lifeline to desperately poor countries.
While the money goes to families, it helps the broader economy and ultimately fills government coffers.
So it's like this boomerang of money.
You throw citizens and you get cash.
52% of surveyed Latin American immigrants expressed a desire to invest in their home country.
Money, this is sort of a by-the-by, but money centers remittance to surpasses both the official development assistance and foreign direct investments for Latin America.
This form of foreign aid doesn't burden U.S. taxpayers and strengthens The economy of the region, thus reducing the number of potential immigrants.
And that can be quite helpful.
It's just another way in which private charity surpasses government aid.
For comparison, in 2008 the US government spent $2 billion in financial assistance for the Latin American and Caribbean regions.
In terms of pure financial help, immigrants are 22 times more effective than American foreign aid.
Okay, we've taken a few slings and arrows to the outrageous Democrats.
Let's have a look at the Republicans. Agribusiness and Republicans.
Ability of an unholy gathering.
The agribusiness sector is one of the largest in the U.S. economy, includes a diverse group of interests, crop, livestock and meat producers, poultry and egg companies, dairy farmers, timber producers, tobacco companies, and food manufacturers and stores.
In the ten years between 1997 and 2007, the agricultural industry enjoyed a nearly 80% average annual increase in corporate profits.
What this means is that through the government they have established significant barriers to entry in their field.
Any area which has that much of an increase in profit normally draws capital, energy and entrepreneurs to whittle away at those giant profits and reduce them to the usual.
So how are they doing that?
Over the same time period as there's this huge growth in corporate profits in the agribusiness sector, the average wage, real wage, of a farm worker remains stagnant and was only half that of a non-farm worker of comparable skill levels.
Unauthorized workers have consistently accounted for at least half of all hired farm workers.
Agribusiness lobbyist Sharon Hughes said, quote, We are either going to have our food produced by foreign workers here in the United States or the farming process will move to foreign countries.
The agribusiness sector has contributed a little more than $624.5 million to federal candidates during the past two decades with nearly 70% going to Republicans.
In 2012, the total agribusiness political contributions amounted to $93 million with 25% going to Democrats and 74% going to Republicans.
The crop production and processing political contributions amounted to 28 million, with 28% going to Democrats and 72% going to Republicans.
So, of course, agriculture in the United States, just as in Western Europe, has been fairly heavily subsidized by the government.
So farmers can afford to sell their produce on the Mexico market below the actual cost of production, a practice called agricultural dumping.
Mexican agricultural producers are estimated to have lost $12.8 billion from 1997 to 2005 due to U.S. produce dumping of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, beef, pork, and poultry.
This has caused wild unemployment amongst Mexican farmers, many of whom turned to the production of drugs or tried to cross to the U.S. border to look for jobs.
Not only are U.S. policies destroying Mexican agriculture, but unemployed Mexican farmers are also forced to put their lives at risk in order to find work in America.
This also happens in the Third World, right?
So American and European farmers dump their products in the Third World, destroying local agriculture, putting people out of work, and thus making them dependent on political handouts, which are then fueled by foreign aid handouts, which is the practice of giving Money from the poor people in rich countries to the rich people in poor countries.
And another example of how government programs always lead to more government programs.
So not only are US policies destroying Mexican agriculture, but unemployed Mexican farmers are forced to put their lives at risk in order to find work in America.
The only beneficiaries of this vicious cycle are American farmers who have access to a labor force that will accept any working conditions out of fear of deportation.
This affects why the farmer lobby has always supported Republicans and encouraged anti-immigrant policies.
Now the parallels between immigration laws and the war on drugs are eerie.
Similarly to drugs, demand for immigrant labor in the U.S. job market hasn't decreased.
Prohibition taught Americans a lesson that is yet to sink in.
If there's a demand for something, people will provide it, one way or another.
Because free immigration is prohibited, criminal organizations, much like Al Capone and his gang, will smuggle immigrants through unlawful means.
A Mexican study revealed that in 2004, there were over 100 large-scale smuggling rings with ties to organized crime and drug trafficking.
Immigrant smuggling is now a multi-billion dollar industry.
For example, the cost of illegal border crossings rose from around $500 in 1993 to $2,500 in 2004.
Some of the code is making $50,000 a week.
You can't stop that.
Furthermore, those adults who decide to cross the border through illegal means are more likely to have criminal backgrounds.
Few law-abiding immigrants will choose the uncertain life that accompanies a criminal status.
Is the American government importing criminals?
Amongst the thousands of children currently arriving at the U.S. border, 16 were identified to be members of Mara Salvatrucha, an international criminal gang notorious for its violence.
We have six minors in Nogales who have admitted to killing and doing grievous bodily injuries.
One admitted to killing as young as eight years old, says a border patrol agent.
They're now using the Nogales Processing Center as a recruitment hub for new members to come in.
They're trying to recruit other teenage boys that are sharing cells with them, and they're using the phones that the Red Cross has set up.
They're supposed to be using those to call back home or to call family members of the United States.
They're also using those as a way to communicate with gang members already in the U.S. cities, reported Katie Pavlich.
With current U.S. policies, underage immigrants are given a potomiso to live in the country until their cases are examined.
This allows criminal organizations to import their young members without much difficulty.
The hands of Border Patrol agents are tied by the law.
In fact, 80% of the supposed children are teenage boys coming across.
The Border Patrol budget increased nearly eight times from 1995 to 2012, despite the agency's failure to prevent unauthorized immigrants from entering the country.
Their population doubled in that period.
As is usually the case with the extrapolated base growth in government programs, the agency started off with 450 offices in 1924, but is currently employing over 21,000 with a budget of over $3.5 billion.
The agency's annual budget is enough to buy everybody in New York City a 16-gigabyte iPad with Retina display and with the $200, sorry, $200 million left over by the entire population of Canada, a Starbucks caramel macchiato.
Great, now I'm thirsty. Or it could purchase over 1.4 million illegal border crossings from a smuggling cartel.
So border patrol budget versus unauthorized immigrants.
The red line going up and up and up.
Border control budget. Now the only reason it went down in 2007-2008 is because the American economy was so wretched that even illegal immigrants were hesitating before coming in.
And border deaths.
The number of immigrants who are known to have died in an attempt to cross the border has doubled in the last 16 years.
Between 1998 and 2012, it is known that over 5,500 immigrants have died trying to enter the United States.
The number of unknown deaths, undocumented or vigilante killings, is certainly far higher.
So, What are we to make of all this?
Thank you for sitting through a fairly massive chasm of information.
Okay, so the history of immigration has a lot to do with communism.
It has a lot to do with race. So anybody who has legitimate concerns over immigration, which, as Joseph Stalin pointed out, splinters and destroys countries, And as history has repeatedly shown, multiculturalism is just another work for simmering nascent cultural conflicts that can erupt at any time.
A lot of it has to do with fears of communism and a lot of it has to do with the racism, right?
So anytime you question illegal immigration or legal immigration and its source, you're told that you are a racist.
Or if you oppose immigrants based on communist tendencies, then you're told that you're an anti-Semite, right?
These are very boring and useless terms, right?
Unless somebody is actually doing a Nazi salute or wearing a KKK outfit, Anti-Semite and racist, just like sexist, very boring words to hear, and it's just kind of a silly game that people play.
Of course, if the Jews who got involved in the black power movement through the communist movement, if the Jews were really, really keen on helping the blacks out so much, then all they need do is...
Open up the borders of Israel to as many African blacks as they can get over there.
This, of course, isn't happening.
Jews, through communism, promote multiculturalism.
And, of course, multiculturalism is promoted by non-Jews, of course, as well.
And this causes problems within the host countries.
When Jews get their own country, you can't get in there, right?
I mean, unless you happen to be Jewish, right?
It's virtually impossible to go to Israel unless you are Jewish.
And even if you are Jewish, there's been a significant drop-off in immigration into Israel.
It's kind of like a joke when people on the left or people who are communists or people who are Jews kind of promote multiculturalism.
It's not like there's a whole lot of multiculturalism in communist countries, which is what a lot of people on the left espouse.
So, I mean, this is kind of a silly joke and we shouldn't take that at all seriously.
We should not worry about accusations of negative personality traits without evidence.
We should worry about the facts.
We should worry about the data. And multiculturalism does reduce Quality of life in neighborhoods almost without exception.
When you also do not allow people to discriminate, and remember, discrimination is one of these words that has both a good and a bad side to it, right?
I'm a very discriminating buyer.
Well, that usually means that you want the best, right?
But to say, like, if you live in some town near the border and you just don't want to hire any more Mexicans, then in a free market situation, that automatically limits immigration, right?
So if there is a recoil against...
Different or even opposing cultures coming into a culture.
Then people will stop hiring those people and then the immigration will stop to some degree.
So when you interfere with free market discrimination, you also then require a huge amount of energy to control immigration.
Again, it's just an example of how one expansion of government power leads to more.
Again, I'm going to reiterate I mean, I don't even know.
You always feel this need to be defensive about this stuff, which isn't rational, but, you know, it is part of the culture that we live in.
You know, my favorite philosophers tend to be Jewish, and my favorite economist is black, and my favorite singer is a Sarastrian from Zanzibar.
So, I mean, it doesn't matter to me where people are from.
It matters about the quality of the individual and so on.
But voting really matters.
It really matters where people live and where they come from when voting allows you to get governments to give you stuff.
It matters the educational level.
It matters whether people have had the historical influence of the Freedom Club in their thinking.
It matters. And this is not something that is even open to debate.
Just go to a Jewish lobby and say, how come you're not multicultural enough to, say, include a whole bunch of anti-Semites in your roster?
Or go to the Black Panthers and say, how come you guys don't open yourself up to multiculturalism and get a bunch of KKK members in here?
Or vice versa. Or go to a gay positive group and say, you need more homophobes because of multiculturalism.
It doesn't work that way.
We all understand that.
And there are values which support a free society.
And those values were painfully developed over many centuries by Western European culture.
And I'm not trying to say that no other cultures add anything of value.
Please, again, don't go to these silly extremes.
But, in general, the West developed Some of the most fantastic things for the world as a whole.
The free market came out of Western thinking.
The scientific method came out of Western thinking.
And empirical rational philosophy came out of Western thinking.
And limited governments came out of Western thinking.
This is some pretty cool stuff for society and the world as a whole.
So it kind of matters.
Again, it doesn't matter whether you're from Western Europe.
It matters whether you Have had exposure to and grown up around concepts of the Freedom Club.
The Freedom Club is not obvious, right?
Because the government can give you a whole bunch of stuff, but it generally destroys your society in the long run.
And the free market is short-term, paying long-term gains.
So you need smarter people to really understand the value of the free market.
And they don't have to be super smart, but they have to be educated in what the free market means and how it benefits society in the long run.
Love to live in a world where we don't care who moves water, who moves where, but that's not the world that we live in.
And my sort of final point is really a call to long-term action.
This problem is not going to be solved tomorrow.
The fact that you can import Voters is not going to...
I mean, unless politicians stop wanting political power, it's never going to happen.
This problem can't be solved in the short run.
I do think it's important to point out the value of culture, to point out the value of a rich, intellectual, and highly developed history, which comes out of Western culture, and to recognize that it does matter, right, who's in.
My ideal, I'll tell you what my ideal is, you have a free society and you have open borders.
And then move here, you know?
If we have a genuine Freedom Club, then anyone who wants to move here kind of by default wants to be in the Freedom Club.
But given that the average household of those who have a grade 10 education or grade 11 education receives over $30,000.
In government benefits a year, this would be the equivalent of Americans living on the border being able to get into Canada.
Once you get into Canada, people give you like almost a quarter million dollars worth of free money every year.
I mean, that'd be pretty irresistible for a lot of people, right?
And this is the economic reality that exists when you have massive government redistribution schemes that are a violation of The Freedom Club, right?
The Freedom Club is private charity which vastly outstrips government charity when it's allowed to, and the Freedom Club is not buying votes through political handouts.
This is not the Freedom Club.
This is the old-style late Roman socialist and Marxist club.
So philosophy, which is the study of reason and evidence and impartial conclusions, reasoning from first principles and so on, solves the problem of disparate cultures not getting along.
If we all have the same methodology, we will generally all come to the same conclusions and we'll have friendly and positive discussions.
Thereby. So in my opinion, as I sort of work through these issues in this conversation, we have to work hard to continue to spread the values and virtues of philosophy, the 2,500-year journey that began with the pre-socuratics and is hopefully going to culminate with the Internet age and the lack of gatekeepers, our capacity to speak and reason with each other in positive ways.
So my suggestion is continue to work for a free society.
When you have a free society, it really doesn't matter.
Who comes? Who doesn't come?
And so on. Because they can't come and prey on you through the political process.
And by default, then everybody who really wants to get into the Freedom Club will really respect and enjoy the Freedom Club.
And that's how the Freedom Club spreads.
I don't want to import dysfunctional belief systems into the Freedom Club.
I want to export the Freedom Club to other countries so that we can all enjoy a peaceful, rational, prosperous, happy, and well-connected future.
This is Stefan Molyneux. For Free Domain Radio, thank you so much for watching.
▲
Export Selection