Radical Agenda EP338 – RAISE Up!

Here at the Radical Agenda, it took us a little while to get up to speed on immigration issues. Like many libertarians, I was clinging to the misguided notion that immigration restrictions were little more than price controls on labor, dictated by unwise central planners, and irrational xenophobic fools.

Radical Agenda EP338 - RAISE Up!

Radical Agenda EP338 – RAISE Up!

These ideas were sadly backed up by the misbehavior of ostensibly right wing people. They would perpetually complain about illegal immigration, insisting their concerns had nothing to do with race. To hear them tell it, the problem with illegal immigration was all about “respect for the law” and since most of the laws on our books today are not worthy of much respect, I didn’t see much reason to care for those pertaining to immigration, without better justification for the policy than “because FedGov said so!”

After all, if what you’re primarily concerned about is adherence to the laws, this could be resolved by opening the borders legally, and granting amnesty to illegal aliens already here. Their lack of support for such policies, seemed to defy their civic nationalist attempts to avoid being painted a racist.

To understand the problem, I needed to look at the world through a racial lense. “Those people” are not “us” and so “they” have to be repelled otherwise “we” will be replaced by “them.” The legality of their entry is not the issue, it is the entry itself. The laws against it are designed to prevent the very real ethnic conflict, and denying this reality leads to altering those laws to permit the ethnic conflict to ensue .

When you realize this, you realize that legal immigration is nearly as bad as that of the criminal variety. Permitting the invasion of one’s nation is only preferable to opposing it if one is a coward who would rather surrender and die than fight to live. Thus, “legal immigration” in the United States and Europe must be severely restricted beyond the nonsensical policies in place today, if our respective nations are to survive.

So I was most enthused to hear that Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) have been working with White House officials to revise and expand a bill released earlier this year that would halve the number of people who receive legal permanent residence over a decade. Trump met with Cotton and Perdue in March to discuss the legislation, known as the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act.

But that’s not all. We’ve got a packed show for you today folks. Jason Kessler, an organizer for the Unite The Right event in Charlottesville this August 12th will be joining us to talk about the event. I also have another recorded phone call I’ll play for you from an interview I had today, with a local reporter about the event.

After him, we have Bill Marchant of Northern Reaction coming to the program. You may recall me reading a piece that Bill wrote titled “Don’t Punch Right” which is going to be a major theme in my speech in Charlottesville. Rather than quote from that specific piece, let me give you his thoughts in the same vein from another piece he wrote titled “Rules for Alt Right Radicals

Any time you feel like arguing with someone, or any time you find yourself arguing with someone, ask yourself two questions: “Is this person, generally, to the right of me politically?” and “In this argument, is this person’s position to the right of mine?” If the answer to both questions is “no,” argue away! If the answer to one or both of the questions is “yes,” think long and hard about whether your side of this argument will push the Overton Window to the Left.

There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls at 747-234-2254 or RadicalAgenda on Skype, if you would like to be on the program, and the more you talk the less I have to, so please do give us a call.

So join us, this and every Wednesday, as well as Mondays and Fridays from 5-7pm Eastern time for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like legislating against invasion.

I’m still banned from streaming to YouTube. Catch the live video stream on UStream. Listen live on the TuneIn app! Got Roku? We’re on there too! Or add the raw stream to your favorite streaming app! Get the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Google PlayRoku, RSS, or RadicalAgenda.com.


I keep the lights on here by selling premium memberships, as well as bumper stickers and shirts. I also solicit donations, and encourage you to shop through my affiliate links. Without that support, this show will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • Stuart Morrow

    If the answer to one or both of the questions is “yes,” think long and
    hard about whether your side of this argument will push the Overton
    Window to the Left.

    That’s interesting. I never knew that was the point of don’t-punch-right. I always thought it was “every time I learn suppressed information or check an unchecked assumption, I become more right-wing. Maybe the people more to the right than me know something that I don’t / are further along that process.”

  • tz1

    Mises believed in war. He sounds more alt-right than rothbardian:

    https://uneasymoney.com/2014/11/16/ludwig-von-mises-explains-and-solves-market-failure/

    Go read it there but to pique your intrerest:

    There it is. With characteristic understatement, Ludwig von Mises, a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society listed on the advisory board of the Society’s flagship publication American Opinion during the 1960s, calls anyone opposed to conscription an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. But what I find interesting in Mises’s diatribe are the two sentences before the last one in the paragraph.

    (Mises)

    He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government.

    • paendragon

      True enough!

      Our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first.

      Beyond that, we need government to counter-attack second, because we have a right not to do so our selves, otherwise we would be enslaved to the criminals’ whims and schedules.

      As a whole, we do have a responsibility to counter-attack second (to hold trials and sentence punishments) if only because the chance of being caught is more of a deterrent than fear of the amount of stated prescribed punishment.

      So as usual we have an individual right, but really only a collective responsibility, to defensively counter-attack.

      • tz1

        Government is merely the label for collective action for defense.
        If you take the privatized “security/insurance/arbitration” stuff proposed by the ancaps it is often a worse nightmare dystopia (Molyneux 3255, 50 minutes in) where if I don’t “volunteer” to buy insurance they will lay siege and ancap will be more like the Branch Davidians at Waco v.s. the FBI than anything a rational person describes as liberty.

        Slavery merely requires an oppressor, even a corporate one.

        • paendragon

          True enough! (And “even” a corporate one?! Don’t get me started on “corporate” crime-gangs LOL)!

          Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

          And it’s based on individual property rights and people’s free-will choice to associate with others:

          People have rights to freely associate and form insurance companies, and to restrict others within their own properties to, say, buy insurance while therein.