1965 Immigration Act

In 1965 America, in its debate on the Immigration Act, had a choice. It could either choose to be Switzerland, with a homogeneous, highly educated, somewhat numerically constrained population or it could become Brazil with a heterogeneous population that would become highly balkanized according to class, race, religion, and education. To choose the first path would have meant social order and ethnic stability, with high productivity. To choose the second path has meant the straining of our social order and the eventuality of the warfare of all against all with the consequence being a Mahat to down culture where a handful of elites (Banking interests) rule over the drone class.

Now, if one is Brazillian, I’m sure one likes Brazil. But the people of this country who have more of a Switzerland mindset shouldn’t be decried because they would have preferred and still prefer Switzerland. The Swiss obviously believe Switzerland is better than Brazil. (And can many cogent reasons to that end.)

The choice to choose the second path in 1965 was done with eyes wide open. Oh, doubtless, there were some useful idiots who voted for the 1965 immigration act not realizing the agenda behind it but that there was a self conscious agenda on the part of movers and shakers to simply dissolve the former American historical people and appoint another. This was largely accomplished through the 1965 immigration act.

The path of balkanization serves only the agenda of a people who have both managed to maintain their homogeneity while at the same time accrue wealth and influence.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *