Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
20 comments:
This whole immigration debate has already brought on a border surge. Or maybe even a tsunami.
Of course, it is a surge of illegal infiltrators bubbling up from below to take advantage of amnesty. And take advantage of the rest of us, I suppose.
So from the administration's POV, the surge has already been a great success.
And, of course, the surges in Afghanistan and Iraq occurred right before the Administration gave up and left, with their tail between their legs. (Not that there was any other way to leave, not with modern notions of warfare.)
Another, unspoken of course: Using the surge as cover, the Iraq Shia purged the hell out of the Sunni, and the Sunni purged the hell out of al-Qaeda.
Ted Cruz knows an opportunity when he sees one:
http://www.tedcruz.org/border-security
"Donate now!"
Rand Paul blew his chance (despite the normally astute steps that got him to this point):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/19/rand_paul_ceci_n_est_pas_un_path_to_citizenship.html
NYT (implicitly) reports that support for immigration reform from the WH has to be "soft" because the President speechifying for immigration reform would mobilize (white) voters hostile to Amnesty.
If you made up a list of lies the cheap labor lobby has told us about the bill and themselves (e.g., the election-time claims by Rubio, Flake, Hatch, Ayotte, and McCain that they opposed amnesty and wanted to 'build the danged fence') how long would that list be?
I have neither the time nore the memory to recall every lie I've heard them say, but it would be long, and could be very effective at reminding people these guys aren't to be trusted.
the elites are thinking about a brief change to delude the rubes
That's why it's the Rubeio bill.
One thing that always strikes me about how the issue of illegal immigration is handled is that there would seem to be an obvious compromise position which no one proposes.
If indeed it's a terrible tragedy that there are "Dreamers" who have been born here, or have lived here illegally for many, many years, why not give them a "path to citizenship" -- but do so by simultaneously cutting down all legal immigration until their numbers are absorbed? The would-be legal immigrants aren't on American soil yet, of course, and so we are hardly obliged to grant them anything, and whatever we do grant them comes purely from our generosity.
Why not let the illegal immigrants be the beneficiaries of that generosity instead, if their situation is so very awful? Why are we obliged both to grant the illegals a "path to citizenship" AND continue legal immigration at it current breakneck pace?
The last 'surge' in Border Patrol hiring ended up putting a lot of bodies in that uniform that didn't deserve to be there. Morale is in the dump and we're constantly being told 'brace for paycuts' due to sequestration.
This should do wonders, I tell you.
And as soon as the smoke settles, they'll pull back any supposed beefed up enforcement and the will invaders will march right back in. But something they don't understand is that the people against immigration reform have no trust in the government in living up to any amendment. Fooling us thrice will not be as easy as they hoped, especially with a significant number paleoliberal Democrats, who traditionally oppose illegal immigration on because it depresses wages and reduces the standard of living.
There's been a Surge in the USCCB and professional Catholics trying to shame us into supporting amnesty too.
http://lamentablysane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-amazing-catholic-bs-generator-part.html?m=1
There is something absurd about listening to the pols talk about border security.
They make a show of securing the border, but once an illegal is inside the country, it's all about how wonderful and vibrant and hardworking these undocumented-Americans are. And out come the violins from *both* parties--"just trying to put food on their families," etc.
Since the politicians regard both legal and illegal immigration as economic necessities and moral imperatives, and since the thought that there are any downsides to immigration never crosses their minds, the only possible interpretation is that politicians don't want to secure the border-- it's just boob bait for those stupid hick voters who don't want to make the country prosperous and vibrant!
Hence the absurdity. Our leaders claim (1) immigrants, legal and illegal, are wonderful people (2) against whom we must secure the border in the future. In other words, the party line on immigration policy is that it should be a giant game of Red Rover.
How can anyone believe in their sincerity about border enforcement?
This surge will be like every election year when the National Guard is sent to the border with much publicity six months before the election and then quietly withdrawn as soon as the election is over.
cowersatives
It's all a conspiracy (or might as well be) by the "donor class" to divide the working class in hotile ethnic groups that they can play them off against each other and rule forever. The cult of diversity is a cynical ploy to make sure that labor never gets organized. Aristocracy today, aristocracey tommorrow, aristocracy forever!
A better way to put it: the cult of diversity is a cynical ploy to emasculate the masses.
This disruptive surge will be dynamic & game-changing. Thought-leaders will be able to disintermediate the narrative ecosystem with moneyball drill-down granularity, as shown by Moore's Law and the Godel Incompleteness Theorems. Actionable intelligence thus translates into mindshare leverage--Web 3.0!
Spengler predictions for the West are coming true. "Democracy, behind which hides the dictatorship of money, then opens the path to Caesarism and the dissolution of the culture into total formlessness."
One thing I could never understand about the typical conservative is how they are not bothered by having leaders who insult them, work against their interests and clearly don't like them. It seems to me that they rationalize away evidence for these things to boost their own egos. Nobody want to think of them self as a sucker and a dupe, but more and more conservatives are realizing that is the role they have been playing.
I think we are moving towards more open confrontation between the conservative base and the GOP/establishment cheap labor interests, and not just on immigration.
In the Bush era, ordinary conservatives would be enraged with me if I pointed out that Dick Cheney is an agent of corruption and crony capitalism or that the country is being run by evil corporations and billionaires who want to destroy America. Now those same people grudgingly agree with me.
I think paleocon/dissent right views are becoming mainstream now among well informed conservatives.
A lot of younger right leaning white males are calling themselves "nationalists" instead of conservatives. I've been surprised by this recently on several occasions. These are non-ideological types who are not involved in racialism or anything like that. It's just that "conservatism" has been so tainted among the youth that no one under 30 wants to be known as one.
We are going to start seeing the nationalist right in Europe having an influence on American conservatives.
A lot of younger right leaning white males are calling themselves "nationalists" instead of conservatives.
At this stage, leftism is so entrenched in society that "conservative" is a misnomer for a person with the sort of society we have as a goal. We don't want to conserve the current status quo, demographically, culturally, or politically. Nationalist is a closer fit, even if (white) ethnic nationalism is a closer one.
There are also advantages in how the left perceives the term. Leftists feel a sort of contempt for conservatives, conjuring up an image of creationist, unsophisticated, bible thumping hillbillies who will ultimately be on the wrong side (i.e. the whom) of history. On the other hand, the left feels a visceral hate and fear of "nationalism" and "nationalists", as they are not just content being brakes on the leftist revolution, rather they would destroy the whole rotten edifice that has been "constructed" by the left.
A typical conservative might rally against amnesty, but feels bound to accept society pretty much the way it is, with citizens like Luis de la Garza and the Tsarnaev brothers and their kin as bad apples who are now regrettably part of our society. They are fine with the US killing millions abroad in foreign wars, but would balk at the idea of a peaceful expulsion back to countries of origin.
By contrast, a nationalist would find it morally less objectionable to peacefully expel people and their offspring who have in many cases been admitted under circumstances that were not democratic and should have required a referendum. Let them have a dream - to reform their own countries in the image of a European country, if that is what they truly desire.
Another advantage of the term "nationalist" is that white nationalists are also nationalists. It is helpful to be able to determine your secret allies in a public setting, with plausible deniability. This is the mirror image of how the terms "socialist" and "Communist" have been used in the past. Many card carrying communists would have referred to themselves as socialists in public, surely. Even the Soviet Union was only called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
These are non-ideological types who are not involved in racialism or anything like that. It's just that "conservatism" has been so tainted among the youth that no one under 30 wants to be known as one.
Another thing to note is that now HBD, paleocon and WN views are getting airplay in comments sections. You can't read news and not have been exposed to some literate, well argued points on our side by now. And young people are on the web. Pretty much all of them.
Back a decade ago, you would see leftists (probably Jewish) who would create online sock puppets espousing caricatured, "Neo-Nazi" views designed to cause maximum revulsion in the average person, and avatars to match - the internet equivalent of the paid actors that would go on the Jerry Springer show, or a Hollywood movie. For quite a while now, it appears that they have largely given up with that tactic. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they've just given it up as a pointless waste of time.
In any case, it's probably difficult to judge from public comments just what people actually think, or what they have been exposed to. I certainly don't say 1/10 of what I could say in public. I'm not alone in doing that.
Post a Comment