Why We Don’t Need a Wall: Let Me Count the Ways, Mi Amor

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 12, 2019

Right now, the Jew Democrats are using a multiverse of different arguments to cockblock the wall, namely:

1. A wall will not work to block immigrants from coming here
2. A wall is too expensive and Democrats are fiscal conservatives with budgetary concerns
3. We don’t need a wall because illegal immigrants have a right to come here (both because they are good for our country somehow and because they are victims in need of humanitarian help)

There are variations of those three, and various addendums, but those are the big three.

Obviously, the first two conflict with the third, the third being closer to their actual argument, which is philosophical and religious rather than based on practicality or reality.

The Jews and their compatriots are barraging multiple arguments at the people simultaneously for the express purpose of causing confusion and making it impossible to mount a clear defense to. Because Jews, as usual, have nothing specific to defend in this situation. It is just an attack, tearing down someone else’s position, so there is no need for it to really remain clear or consistent.

If you start talking about how immigrants are criminals, they will start saying “oh well akshually black people commit way more crimes than Mexicans.”

If you somehow get to the fact that we really just don’t need any more criminals, they will start saying “yeah but a wall won’t stop 100% of them from entering because some of them will build tunnels or use a boat, so there is literally no reason to try.”

If you start talking about how a wall would have prevented the alleged humanitarian crisis of all these children in concentration camps at the border, they will start saying “these people are not a threat and we should just let them all in.”

Then if you somehow negotiate all of that, they’ll start talking about how expensive it is, how we just cannot afford the wall (because we have to send all that money to Israel and use it to fight wars for Israel, along with whatever other programs), so we just have to give up. Then they will start in on how Trump akshually said that Mexico would pay for it.

Usually, all these arguments are made all at the same time, creating a “???” type situation. They will criss-cross and mix them together. The recent Guardian op-ed is a good example. They said that the wall was “expensive and pointless” – and then the reason it was “pointless” was not because it wouldn’t work, but because akshually Mexicans aren’t even criminals and the US should just have an open border.

Part of this problem is that an entire layer of unnecessary arguments comes from the fact that we cannot talk about how “this is our country,” and instead must talk about “oh but they’re criminals.”

I think probably the crime rates for first generation illegal immigrants are lower than the rates for domestically-born latinos. It makes sense that this would be the case, and studies (by Jason Richwine and others) tend to indicate this. Ultimately we do not know, because we have no real record of illegal immigrants to know what crimes they are committing, and so much violent crime in nonwhite communities goes unsolved anyway.

Certainly, latinos in general have a much lower crime rate than domestically born blacks by a massive margin, but there it’s simply an issue of blacks being such extreme criminals that even bringing up the issue is ridiculous.

It gets to be this whole huge mess, where the Jews are able to duck and swerve.

It would be a much stronger argumentation point if we could simply say “this is America, not Mexico, it is our country and we have a right to keep it that way” rather than ever mentioning crime statistics or crime anecdotes at all.

But even without being able to say that on TV in current year (if you’re not Tucker Carlson), you can combat any of the main Jewish arguments with facts and reason.

And they know this, which is why they oscillate between multiple different arguments at a rapid pace.

1. Walls have worked all throughout history at stopping people from moving freely from one area to another, the Israeli Southern wall had a 100% success rate at keeping out illegal immigrants in 2017.
2. This country has a whole lot of money that it is spending on unnecessary programs that can be cut to pay for the wall.
3. The third point, the “just let them all in” argument, is the one they are least comfortable using outright by itself, but it is also the most difficult to respond to, because it is a religious argument. Also because there are so many different reasons that you wouldn’t want to have total open borders, and if you give one reason they will just focus obsessively on bringing up all these different questions surrounding that one reason. Trump has chosen to focus on crimes, and that’s fine. You can still win that argument. (The expenses of welfare for these people is another one that is good, although they have this entire body of experts saying that open borders with the entire third world is actually good for the economy and will just quote nonsense numbers that they’ve made up.)

It is all very tiresome.

I would advise you all in your personal lives to stick to some not outright Nazi version of “this is our home and we have a right to it,” rather than even engaging in any of the rest of this stuff at all. I will try to make an outline of that sometime when I’ve had more coffee.