Category Archives: Immigration
Not only has the Obama Regime refused to lift a finger to stop the massive invasion pouring across our southern border, he has spent our money to distribute the invaders and the diseases they carry throughout the country. But that wasn’t enough. Now he wants to spare them the travails of travel through Mexico by flying them up — again at our expense — directly from Central America. All he has to do to sell this to cretins is declare the lawless welfare colonists to be “refugees.”
The New York Times does its best to spin this scheme as anything but treasonous:
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
Migrants? They are entering our country in violation of our laws in order to take what belongs to us via the welfare apparatus. They are invaders, not migrants. The claim that making the invasion risk-free and convenient by flying them up from Honduras will “stem the tide” is so far beyond preposterous that I can’t get my jaw to close.
Of course the plan is to inflict this through executive action. Few who have to face voters again will be likely to back a plan so blatantly inimical to American interests, so it would never get through Congress.
How do they figure the colonists are “refugees” worthy of skipping the line in front of legitimate immigrants who might actually contribute to the American economy? After all, violence in Central America, a ubiquitous feature of that savage, backward land, is actually down lately. The Slimes explains:
Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.
Got that? By importing thousands upon thousands of “children” of all ages, some of whom have already committed murder and are covered in gang tattoos, into American neighborhoods that already are or will soon become gang-infested slums, we are saving them from these very gangs. No wonder liberals glow with such self-satisfied righteousness.
If “successful” in Honduras, the program will be expanded to El Salvador and Guatemala as well.
Our rulers are almost ready to discard the pretense that this is all about children:
According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds — known as humanitarian parole — to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.
By “people under 21,” they mean “people who could conceivably pass for under 21.” Undocumented Democrats tend not to have any documentation that would prove when they were born. If you could get carded at the liquor store, you qualify as a child. If not, you get in on “emergency humanitarian grounds.”
By the way, refugees officially qualify for public assistance as soon as they touch American soil. Not that illegal aliens have any trouble collecting the loot that lures them here.
Imagine if Obama had been president in 1941. To spare the Japanese the trouble of having to cross the Pacific on their own, he would be flying them over at our expense to take over our country.
But there is a difference between the current invasion and the one that never happened from imperial Japan. Eventually, we would have cast off Japanese conquerors and kicked them out of our country. We will never cast off our Third World welfare overlords, because given the open borders and their birth rates, they will soon outnumber us. It won’t be our country; it will be theirs. We will subsist in it merely to serve as their slaves, working so that the government can “redistribute” the wealth we create onto their EBT cards, in return for their votes.
The scale of the treason we are witnessing dwarfs anything Vidkun Quisling was accused of. Yet there is virtually no resistance.
On a tip from Bodhisattva.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
The nation thundered no. And Congress sustained the nation.
Indeed, with the massive media coverage of the crisis on the border, immigration, legal and illegal, and what it portends for our future, could become the decisive issue of 2014 and 2016.
But it needs to be put in a larger context. For this issue is about more than whether the Chamber of Commerce gets amnesty for its members who have been exploiting cheap illegal labor.
The real issue: Will America remain one nation, or are we are on the road to Balkanization and the breakup of America into ethnic enclaves? For, as Ronald Reagan said, a nation that cannot control its borders isn’t really a nation anymore.
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote,
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … “
He called Americans a “band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties.” The republic of the founders for whom Jay spoke did not give a fig for diversity. They cherished our unity, commonality, and sameness of ancestry, culture, faith and traditions.
We were not a nation of immigrants in 1789.
They came later…
Read it all at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-destroying-america
I want to know where you live, Mark Zuckerberg
Like America, you’re rich. I don’t have a problem with that:
you earned your 30 billion dollars and the very nice house that you live in. But I want to know where you live – not just generally. I want the exact address. Because I want to put up flyers all around your neighborhood – and on the internet, so it can go all around the world – telling people that you don’t believe in borders, walls, locked doors or property rights. I want every homeless person in America – in fact, everyone in greater need than you – to know that they can come to your home, walk in the front door, hit the refrigerator and sit on the couch and watch your amazing home theater.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
. The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.
A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.
The 290,000 illegals – so far – are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.
Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.
The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies – such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos – are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections.
The Central American parents of the 50,000 youths and children are using a 2008 law to ensure their children are transported to them for free by a relay of border patrol and Department of Health and Human Services officials. The youths are delivered to the border patrol by smugglers, dubbed coyotes, in exchange for several thousand dollars.
Half of the 50,000 Central American youths were delivered by taxpayer-funded employees directly to their parents now living in the United States, and another third were delivered to people who said they were close relatives, said the July 3 article.
That new data was included in the 19th paragraph of a 20-paragraph July 3 article.
Top immigration officials choose to not check if the relatives or parents who pick up the children are in the country legally.
Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.
The 240,000 strong-group largely consists of many mothers and young children, most of whom are now being flown and bussed to destinations near where they wish to settle. That new 240,000 number was included in the seventh paragraph of a 24-paragraph article.
Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers.
Officials have not said where they’ve delivered the adults or youth illegals, but pro-American activists are keeping track of some locations, including San Diego, Calif.
Officials have defended the administration’s catch-and-release policy, which critics say is inviting more Central Americans to cross the border in the hope of being arrested by the border patrol.
“When you have a noncriminal [border-crossing ] mother, they are going to be released,” David Jennings, the head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency in southern California. “The most humane way to deal with this is to find out where they are going and get them there,” he said at a town meeting held in Murrieta, Calif., according to the New York Times.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The country is merging with Mexico, as hard as it can.
It is an astonishing thing to do for no particular reason.
Nobody can quite explain why. At the highest level, it makes sense: We have a black president and attorney general who do not like white people, whom they believe to have mistreated blacks. What sweeter revenge than to turn their country a nice mahogany color? And businessmen want cheap labor. But to drastically changes the nature and prospects of what was the world’s leading nation so that McDonald’s can have its burgers flipped at lesser cost—here is a marvel new under the sun. Countries deserve what they tolerate, and this one will tolerate anything. Except freedom of association or expression, or civilized levels of schooling.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Suicide by Immigration of Western Civ. Those that Have an Ear To Hear, Let Them Hear Truth. Most Will Not.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage: Speech at Volkstrauertag 2012
In light of Volkstrauertag last month, I wish to present to you this speech given last year by German center-right political activist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, in front of the Reichstag in Berlin. Kleine-Hartage is the author of The Jihad System: How Islam Functions, Defend Europe, Why I am No Longer a Leftist, and The Liberal Society and Its End—On the Suicide of a System.
For many of us have not learned to cease the mourning.
Transcript below translated by Yours Fraternally.
In normal times and under normal circumstances, a day like the today’s People’s Mourning Day would be a day of quiet remembrance, and the common grief of all the people and their representatives.
In normal times, it would be a day of prayer: for the dead of past wars, so that the future wars may be spared from us.
In normal times, there would be agreement over the meaning of the People’s Mourning Day; there would be no need, on such a day, to hold political speeches and so to speak of the disagreement.
In normal times, we would not have to gather in front of the Reichstag building, to set a counterpoint to what is going on inside of this building.
But the times are not normal. This People’s Mourning Day falls not in a period of peace, but in a time of undeclared war being waged against the peoples of Europe.
It comes in a time, in which it is necessary to explain in detail the self-evident truisms that one feels connected to his own people in a special way, and that this has nothing to do with resentment of other peoples.
We live in a time in which such self-evident truths are not to be understood even when explained in detail, because a whole cartel of propaganda institutions are working to defame him who utters them.
We live in a time in which the people must fight to even get a word through, for their so-called representatives put words in their mouths which they would never say themselves.
We are here today to give these people a voice, and therefore today’s remembrance cannot be a silent remembrance, although we all would like to have one. The circumstances, which we have not chosen, but are forced upon us, do not let us.
That my name is on the list of speakers for today’s People’s Mourning Day is a coincidence. It might as well be on the list of victims of xenophobic violence whose names are yet to be read here.
Two and a half years ago, I was approached and beaten by a Nigerian. And he hit and hit and did not stop. The reason for this violence and hatred was that I had asked him to turn down the music which from his shop could be heard throughout the entire Altstadt Spandau. What had saved my life was the fact that a very athletically-built former police officer came along by chance, who had the ability and the courage to intervene. As we all know, this is an extremely rare stroke of luck, and to this stroke of luck I owe that I am standing here.
The case is in three ways characteristic: by the triviality of the event, by the excessive brutality of the reaction, and by the hatred towards the local people, which explodes at the slightest provocation.
Sure, is it a unique case, in the sense that every single case is tautologically an individual case. But as a social scientist, I cannot be satisfied with flat tautologies. When thousands and thousands of such “individual cases” follow a recognizable pattern, when repeatedly the same constellations emerge, when repeatedly the same mentality is recognized, when repeatedly the offenders come from the same group, then I cannot pretend that the victims of such crimes are only victims of general crime, which exists like a background noise in every society and always will. These violent crimes must have nameable causes.
Up to this point, presumably even leftist and liberal do-gooders would go along. The talk of the “social causes” of immigrant violence (provided it is ever named as such) is almost one of their standard phrases. By this they mean that the violent crimes committed by immigrants have social causes; but at the same time they hold that these oft-cited “individual cases” have nothing to do with each other and there is no identifiable pattern exhibited.
The ideology industry of our country will therefore have to decide on one of its two excuses, for they are logically mutually exclusive. Because an excuse is also part of the “social causes” produced incessantly by the progressive ideologues: if these ideologues—no matter whether they are politicians, journalists, religious leaders, teachers or professors—speak of “social causes”, then they do so as a norm, without having researched according to the real social causes.
The list of their so-called social causes is extremely clear: Immigrant violence is committed—according to the mainstream discourse—because immigrants are poor, the society is not integrating them enough, the fight against the far right has not been vigorous enough and—this above all—because the German racists out of pure malice discriminate against the immigrants.
I want to see one of these ideologues show me one country in the world that is less racist than Germany! Just a single one! There is no other country in the world where people are as careful as here not to infer anything about individuals from general views of ethnic groups, where it is considered as important as here to prevent prejudice in order to see each person as an individual instead of a mere instance of a group to which one attributes properties.
And this aversion against prejudice can even be dangerous. Take this Nigerian for an example: Had I had the preconception already that he was violent, I would not have gone to him, but would instead sent the police to him. That I did not have this prejudice almost cost me my life.
Let us set this straight: This is not a plea for people to orient themselves in the future towards prejudice. But it is a plea to dismiss the wholesale suspicion of the German people as a nation of racists as the baseless—and racist itself!—defamation it actually is!
The progressives never look into the real social causes of immigrant violence; they just use this violence to demand what they demand anyway and what they have been doing: the expansion of the welfare state at the expense of the taxpayer, more positions and more means of control for deserving comrades and their projects, the muzzling of their political opponents, more propaganda, more censorship and the increased intimidation and defamation of their own people. What the progressive ideologues mean by the “social causes” of immigrant violence is only one thing: that their own ideology has not been sufficiently implemented, that their owninterests have not been sufficiently served.
It is not automatic, and it does not happen by chance, that people indeed manage to live together peacefully and orderly; it is an astonishing wonder that they do. Every culture is a fine network of thousands and thousands of largely unwritten rules, values, shared memories, shared beliefs. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how people do it, and when I say “unique”, then that means inevitably these answers vary: there are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion is the basis of society, which protects individuals, and there are on the other hand individualistically-influenced cultures like ours, in which you trust the state and the laws to provide this protection, and which relies on everyone else doing the same. There are cultures in which the ability and willingness to use force has prestige value, and there are cultures like ours in which violence is outlawed. There are cultures in which yielding is considered a sign of weakness, and there are cultures like ours, in which conflicts are regarded as mere differences of opinion, which are at best discharged discursively and at worst in court.
Yet these other cultures do not necessarily work worse than ours, but just differently. Islam, for example, does what is needed to provide a cultural system: it organizes the society. But it organizes it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problem only begins where one locks together two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures in the same country, so they are crammed together, but do not belong together.
In wanting and introducing a multi-ethnic state, society is put in the state of an (at least) latent civil war. In running this, the society falls into a permanent structural crisis that is constantly reinforced with progressive mass immigration, which stirs up conflicts, encourages vigilantism, destroys the social consensus of values, and destroys the conditions of social peace. He who teaches his own children peacefulness does so because of ethical values ultimately rooted in Christianity. Then forcing the thus peacefully behaved people to live together with others who come from cultures married to violence—such as that Nigerian—makes them specifically and systematically victimized. This invites an endless liability.
The 7500 Germans since 1990 who have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy daring enough to destroy society: out of ideological blindness; out of greed for cheap, easily exploitable labor, whose situation is precarious at the same time, for the welfare state will collapse at the point of exhaustion (this one also a quite desirable result of mass immigration for certain circles); out of hatred for his own people, those damn Germans they want nothing to do with; and—not the least—out of lust for power. There is a reason why there are elites in all Western countries who carry out the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere splintered “populations”: peoples are in fact solidarities that can also kick their rulers out. The battle cry with which the rule of the SED [the Soviet-installed Socialist ruling party of East Germany] was overthrown 23 years ago did not read “We are the population.” It read: “We are the people!” A mere population, consisting of dozens of warring ethnicities, will never overthrow the ruler. They cannot. A democracy needs its demos. A despotism on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime—yes, such a thing needs a population.
The destruction of the people is one side of the same coin, to which the other side is the transfer of their rights to supranational institutions: to the EU, the WTO, the IWF, the NATO, the UN and dozens else—all institutions that cannot be controlled from below, but that determine our lives: that dictate to us the rules by which we live, and dictate to us which foods we should eat, which people we have to live together with in our country, against whom we must go to war, and into what inscrutable bank-conglomerate our tax dollars disappear.
What is here in the making as understood is a global despotism of elites who resist any responsibility and any control. And the systematically induced mass migration, this largest mass migration in 1500 years—when this migration of peoples led to the collapse of Roman civilization—is part of this process.
Against today’s events it has been argued, the People’s Mourning Day is dedicated to the mourning of German war victims, and crime victims were indeed not war victims. And I say: They are just that! They are victims of a war that is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not only against the Germans. But when I point out that a war is being waged, I have to answer the question of who the enemy is.
Are the enemy young immigrants, who lead their private jihad against the people despised by them for educating its children to peacefulness? I would say: They are at most the auxiliary, as were the Antifa: the autonomous, anti-German little leftists fighting against law with taxpayers’ money, acting all too gladly like pig-men, reveling in self-righteousness, denunciation, bullying and witch-hunt; such sort of auxiliary troops.
Might the enemy sit in the Muslim Brotherhood, or in the Turkish Government, or in the Millî Görüş? I would say: There sit at most—but still!—the rods of the auxiliary troops. No, the enemy that is waging war against this people sits here: in this building that is dedicated to this very people. And not only here: He sits not only on government chairs and parliament seats, but also in electoral offices, in ivory towers, at the headquarters of banks and large corporations, in the EU bureaucracy, on the boards of multi-billion-dollar propaganda foundations and within the luxury villas of their financiers. He sits in Berlin, in Brussels, in New York, in Washington—he sits where social power is clustered together, visible and invisible alike.
The war which has taken the victims we mourn today is a war of those in power, a tiny elite, against the rest; it is a war of the rulers against the people.
This parliament, this political class, so concerned with the political affairs of the rich and powerful, this political class has no right to grieve German dead—because they are not their dead! They have not the right to host a People’s Mourning Day, because they have broken away from their people, cheated them, betrayed them, sold them out, and now are working on their destruction! They have not even the right to, as they do now, mourn the foreign victims of right-wing extremist violence, for it is these dead too whom they have on their conscience! And the tears which they now shed are crocodile tears.
We mourn today the victims of an extremely one-sided war. It is time that the peoples of Europe accept the unspoken, but highly effective declaration of war by their so-called elites and respond appropriately.
I thank you!
The surreal nightmare unfolding in the Southwest as the undefended border is swept away by a tsunami of Central American children in a scene straight out of The Camp of the Saints did not happen without help. It was orchestrated by the radical left Alinskyite activists running the federal government:
“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.
“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.
“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”
Presumably they are being brought up through Mexico from the squalid jungles of South America by their parents, who send them across the undefended border to turn themselves in, secure in the knowledge that they will be granted amnesty, and that the parents themselves can soon follow through chain migration.
Given the numbers involved, this is an invasion that would fully warrant a full-scale military response, because it poses as direct a threat to our country as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. But respond against whom? You can’t bomb children or their illiterate peasant parents, if only because the anti-American media would have a field day. Far better to call in an air strike on the people responsible. But you can’t do that either, because they are running our government.
Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.
More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.
A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.
Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.
Naturally the Obama Regime is responding to the crisis it created by using our money to support the invaders:
Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.
The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.
This is national betrayal on an even grander scale than Obama’s release of Gitmo terrorists. We survived the last 9/11 and we will survive the next one, but we will not survive being displaced by hordes of unassimilable Third World peasants drawn by the lure of extravagant welfare benefits.
The officers argue that the non-enforcement of immigration laws is “the next step in becoming a failed state.”
America’s failure is Obama’s success. That’s why his chief teleprompter programmer Valerie Jarrett has found the time recently to meet repeatedly with an illegal alien activist group.
Already 75% of Hispanics voted for Obama, and 75% support Big Government at the expense of individual liberty. For the type primarily imported now — unskilled peasants often from Central American jungles, many of whom don’t even speak Spanish much less English — the percentages will be even higher. That’s what this is all about.
Saul Alinsky, a major influence on Obama and presumably Jarrett too, would call this community activism on an international scale. Someone who meant America well would call it treason.
The purpose of military bases is to protect America’s security — which ultimately means its borders. These bases have become swamped with the conquering army of peasant children. In essence, the enemy’s flag flies over the bases. We have quite literally been invaded by a hostile foreign army with the help of our quisling government.
It is an army of children because that excuses not resisting, but in the end it won’t matter if they wore helmets or sneakers — only that they took our country away.
Joke Biden is relatively up front about the objective of Obama’s immigration policy:
Biden told a National Association of Manufacturers’ crowd this week that what the United States needed was more, not fewer, immigrants.
Specifically, he called for a “constant, unrelenting stream” of new immigrants — “not dribbling [but] significant flows,” to bolster the national economy, The Hill reported.
Meanwhile, federal authorities have predicted that the number of children illegally crossing the border without parents this year will hit at 90,000 — up from an average 6,500 over years past.
Also meanwhile, the labor participation rate is collapsing. Not even Biden could be enough of an idiot to think being invaded, colonized, and displaced by illiterate, unskilled Third Worlders will benefit America, economically or otherwise.
We let our enemies take over the media and then through it our government. As an inevitable result, our country is now dying.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Posted on | April 20, 2014
It was Dick Gregory, I believe, who defined “integration” as the period of time between when the first black family moves into a neighborhood and the last white family moves out. The recent report that New York City’s schools are the most segregated in the country might be seen as confirmation of that cynical jest.
Are we to assume that the enlightened and sophisticated white liberals of New York are secretly more racist — “RAAAAACIST!” — than they would have us believe? Our suspicion of pharisaical hypocrisy on their part may explain why liberals are always able to hear those coded racist “dog whistles” that nobody else can hear. Perpetual outrage at the alleged racism of Republicans functions as a means by which white liberals soothe their guilty consciences and tune out the cognitive dissonance that results from the unbridgeable chasm between their professed egalitarian beliefs and their inevitably elitist lifestyles.
There may be no better example of the ongoing scandal of school segregation than the New York City public-school system, which a recent report by the Civil Rights Project at U.C.L.A. found to be one of the most segregated in the country. Black and Latino students in New York have become more likely to attend schools with minimal white enrollment, and a majority of them go to schools defined by concentrated poverty. . . . New York is simultaneously the most diverse city in the United States and the most glaring indicator of integration’s failures.
Perhaps the question we should ask is not “Why has integration failed?” Rather we might ask, “Why did anyone ever imagine integration could succeed?” Meanwhile, Jelani Cobb confirms Dick Gregory’s cynical observation:
When I graduated from Jamaica High School, in Queens, in 1987, the school was recognized for both its high academic performance and its diverse student body, which mirrored the polyglot neighborhood that surrounded it. (In 1985, it was honored by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the nation’s “outstanding” public secondary schools.) Among my four closest African-American friends from high school — only one of whom had college-educated parents — two went on to get Ph.D.s, and the other two have M.B.A.s. By 2009, however, the graduation rate had slumped below fifty per cent, and the school was slated for closure by the city, owing to its poor academic achievement and high levels of violence. It had already long ceased having the mélange of ethnicities that I remembered. But the reversion toward segregation was not the cause of the school’s academic decline: both were symptoms of the concentration of poverty that has come to define public schools across most of New York City.
Over a period of roughly 20 years, then, this district in Queens went from being “diverse . . . polyglot” in its “mélange of ethnicities” to being overwhelmingly black. And during the same period, Jamaica High went from being an “outstanding” school to being a place of “poor academic achievement and high levels of violence,” where more than half of students drop out before graduation, a phenomenon attributed by Cobb to “the concentration of poverty.”
Well, what happened? And why did it happen? Was the change in demographics — and the correspondent “academic decline” described by Cobb — a result of intransigent white racism? Was any particular public policy implicated in this decline? The Wikipedia article about Jamaica, Queens, describes the population as 48% black, 22% Hispanic, 20% white and 10% Asian. The article also describes immigration as a major factor in the changing demographics of the community.
Is it possible that, rather than bemoaning white racism — which certainly has not increased as a factor in the past 20 years — those who desire more integrated schools should instead focus their attention on the ways in which our nation’s immigration policies contribute to increased segregation? Many who have studied this phenomenon have pointed out that an influx of impoverished immigrants, whatever its impact on the nation as a whole, has a profoundly negative influence on the prospects of low-income groups, who are forced into economic competition with the new arrivals. But if Jelani Cobb paid too much attention to such research, he might begin to have doubts about liberal proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and, if he ever took a strong public stand against amnesty, then white liberals would call him a racist, too.
Welcome to 2014, Mr. Cobb. We’re all racists now.
From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
“Burn The Witch!” Heritage Foundation Scuttles Away From Jason Richwine—And The Cold Hard Facts
The story so far (in the wee hours of Thursday morning). Following the release of a report by the Heritage Foundation arguing that the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill will cost the nation $6.3 trillion, the Slave Power set their dwarf miners to digging.
They soon found gold. One of the co-authors of the study is twentysomething Jason Richwine, a Heritage analyst. Not just an analyst, but a quantitative analyst: “Heritage’s senior policy analyst in empirical studies.”
Uh-oh. This Richwine guy deals with numbers, evidence, and facts—radioactive materials in a nation under strong ideological control.
To sift truth from error at best requires an effort; where there is no great advantage for the former, the latter often prevails, as errors are infinite, simple, and attractive—and many a fancy lends support to established position—while truth is one and often stern. The imperial order, itself irrational and hence distrusting reason, excels in credulity and superstition.
—Robert G. Wesson, The Imperial Order
The Washington Post ran a gleeful story on the find under the headline “Heritage study co-author opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs.” [By Dylan Matthews, May 8, 2013]They note that:
Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races.
Eek! A witch! But how to link this evil person (for such he plainly is) with the Heritage report costing Rubio-Schumer? Easy.
First, the Post notes that Richwine’s thesis argues for selection of immigrants by IQ. (“I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection”—page 133 of the thesis.) However:
He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”
That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage’s current work on immigration. His and Rector’s report recommends greatly reducing “low-skilled” immigration and increasing “high-skilled” immigration. “The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms,” they write.
See? That Heritage report on the Rubio-Schumer bill is nothing but a conduit for the twisted white supremacist fantasies of a racist bigot!
(I note in passing that the Heritage position favoring increases in high-skilled immigration is at odds with VDARE.com’s position, and also with the data.)
Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, on secondment from Conservatism, Inc. to offer some pretense of “balance” at the Post, hastened to join the lynch mob. “It undermines the cause of all immigration opponents to have their prized work authored by such a character,” she wrote, reading Richwine out of respectable society.
It’s an unpleasant reminder that sincere opponents of reform should distance themselves from the collection of extremists and bigots who populate certain anti-immigrant groups.[ Heritage stumbles, again and again, May 8, 2013]
She then brings in Jennifer S. Korn for a quote. Ms. Korn was Secretary for Hispandering in the George W. Bush White House. (Note that her bio page on the Hispanic Leadership Network website retails the old lie about Bush getting 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. These people live in lies like maggots in rotten meat.)
What does Ms. Korn have to tell us?
Richwine’s comments are bigoted and ignorant. America is a nation of immigrants; to impugn the intelligence of immigrants is to offend each and every American and the foundation of our country.
So you can get a Ph.D. from Harvard by submitting “comments” to the thesis examiners? Who knew?
In fact Richwine’s thesis is of a properly scholarly standard, with twelve pages of references (pp. 147-158) and a wealth of quantitative data from published academic sources.
As to Richwine having “impugned” the intelligence of immigrants: My dictionary defines “impugn” as “cast doubt upon.” Far from casting doubt, Richwine’s thesis seeks to remove doubt by careful quantitative analysis.
Even if you take Ms. Korn’s usage of “impugn” to mean Richwine has stated that immigrants have lower mean IQ than natives, she is wrong. Table 2.2 in the thesis (p. 30) gives an average estimated mean IQ of 105.5 for immigrants from Northeast Asia. Should Mrs. Derbyshire consider herself impugned? (I asked: she doesn’t.) The estimated mean for European immigrants—that’s me!—in that table is 98.0. Am I thereby impugned? I’m reaching for it, trying to feel it, but . . . no, it’s not there.
The comment thread to Jennifer Rubin’s piece is laden with the usual driveling ignorant obscurantist piffle one gets in these cases. “I’m an immigrant and I’m smart!” (Commenter at 5/8/2013 8:42 PM.) Not smart enough to understand the concept of an average, apparently. “Goddard said Jewish immigrants were dumb!” No he didn’t. Fox News . . . the Koch brothers . . . You know how it goes.
(Not even trying! Ms. Rubin herself, by way of slandering George Borjas, one of Richwine’s thesis advisers, links to an 849-word column by Hispanic race shill Raoul Lowery Contreras that has “Nazi” at word number three—a sensational GQ of 0.35!)
There is, though, in that comment thread, some good push-back against the nitwits. A shout-out here from me to “Bob017,” whoever he is (I have no idea), for stalwart service. Our own Steve Sailer is in there, too. Magna est veritas et prævalebit—“The truth is great and it will prevail a bit.”
And so another “anti-racist” witch hunt commences. I know how Jason Richwine feels right now: about the same way I felt the weekend of April 7th-8th last year.
The forces of orthodoxy have identified a heretic. They’re marching on his hut with pitchforks and flaming brands. The cry echoes around the internet: “Burn the witch!”
Here’s what you can expect, Jason.
First, you’re not going to come to any physical harm (though your email might get sabotaged). It’s not really personal. The lefties are not after you, though if they mess up your life they will of course feel pleased with themselves. They are after the Heritage Foundation, just as the mob coming after me last year were after National Review.
Old Chinese proverb: sha ji xìa hóu—“kill a chicken to scare the monkeys.” You’re the chicken, pal.
Second, the monkeys will be duly scared. Expect Heritage to disown you.
It’s not that Heritage people in general are jerks, though of course a few individuals may be. It’s part prudential, part ideological.
The prudential aspect is simply the hard logic of fighting a war—the Cold Civil War—with numerically inferior forces. You have to pick your fights with care, like Joe Johnston retreating up the Peninsula before the Seven Days. Joining battle with the massed forces of Cultural Marxism—the media, schools and colleges, corporations, unions, major religious establishments, government bureaucracies—on behalf of a lone staffer could be suicidal.
From where we stand here on the Dissident Right, Conservatism, Inc., of which the Heritage Foundation is one pillar, looks pretty formidable. As much as we have fun scoffing at them, though, we should remember that they see themselves, accurately, as a beleaguered minority.
And they are not a beleaguered minority of quantitative analysts, unfortunately. I doubt there are many Jason Richwines at the Heritage Foundation. Statistical numeracy is a rare talent, rare enough that you can spend many hours among the inmates of conservative think-tanks without encountering the slightest smidgeon, trace, jot, or tittle of it.
Hence the ideological factor. Absent that coldly empirical, quantitative cast of mind that Jason Richwine admirably displays in his Ph.D. thesis, one is open to infection by feelgood ideological fads. This applies to self-identifying conservatives as much as to liberals; and since the overwhelming ideological authority in our country belongs to the Cultural Marxists, not-very-numerate conservatives are generally infected to some degree.
Thus the underbusthrowing of Jason Richwine by Heritage Foundation, which seems to be already under way as I write, is not only prudential. The immigration romantics and world-saving missionaries who control Conservatism, Inc., and who are no doubt plentiful in the decision-makers at Heritage, will be repelled by Richwine’s thesis, or by the accounts of it they are fed by Cultural Marxist outlets (thanks, guys!)
In dumping Richwine they will feel vaguely that they are performing an act of institutional hygiene, cleansing themselves of the dread taint of racism. That everything he says is true, and buttressed by facts, will count for nothing. “Truth is one and often stern”—too stern for the soft minds of careerist hacks.
See you in the camps, Jason!
John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amounton all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His latest book is From The Dissident Right. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.
Readers who wish to donate (tax deductible) funds specifically earmarked for John Derbyshire’s writings at VDARE.com can do so here.
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Police State Superbowl
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014 is a country where the majority of births are non-white, the middle class is shrinking—and the state of social capital is devastatingly summed up by the Police State measures required to ensure the safety of a football game.
Fans with tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl can’t even tailgate outside MetLife Stadium. [No tailgating at Super Bowl, By Jane McManus, ESPN, December 9, 2013] You can’t even walk to the stadium, with the NFL devising “Fan Express Zones” (at a cost $51 per ride), where you can board a bus and be shuttled to and from the Broncos-Seahawks game. [You Can’t Walk to the Super Bowl Because You Are the NFL’s Personal ATM, By Sean Conboy, Sports Illustrated, January 28, 2014]
What would one of those 1967 fans have thought if they’d be able to see Super Bowl 48? (Mind you, the number of black players on the field in that first game resembles the number of white players on the field in today’s game.)
You don’t have to be InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones to understand something is seriously wrong, as police state measures are implemented not just in the NFL and at the Super Bowl, but across all of America. [NFL wants pat-downs from ankles up at all stadiums, USA Today, September 15 2011]
Jones, whose webzine is one of the fastest growing media organizations precisely because so many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their freedoms, has called for a boycott of the NFL, arguing that the league’s TSA-style security at stadiums is just another way of conditioning fans to accept the encroaching police state. [NFL Faces National Protest, Infowars.com, December 4, 2013]
Purses and backpacks have been banned from games, with the Department of Homeland Security providing a stamp of approval for the NFL’s safety measures. [NFL Bans Purses and Backpacks, Limits Fans to One Gallon-Sized Baggie, By Zenon Evans, Reason, August 6, 2013]
Jones noted, in announcing his decision to call for a boycott of the NFL, that the league vetoed a Super Bowl commercial by rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense:
The company’s “offensive” ad depicts a former marine arriving home to greet his wife and child, accompanied by a voice over stating, “no one has the right to tell me how to defend them.”
The ad supposedly violates the NFL’s advertising guidelines, which bar ads featuring “firearms, ammunition or other weapons,” even though the ad doesn’t actually show any of the above, aside from an illustration of their popular DDM4 rifle featured below Daniel Defense’s logo.
[National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched: Pro-Obamacare NFL launches war on Second Amendment, InfoWars.com, December 4, 2013]
How could you tell the America of John Wayne that, one day, several U.S. states would be waging war with the 2nd Amendment and that the NFL—with Bob Costas of NBC’s Football Night in America leading the way—would be an active participant?
Some fear the NFL’s Police-State measures amount to something far more pernicious: The NFL’s Role In the Coming Martial Law, By Dave Hodges, Lew Rockwell.com, December 10, 2013]
But 2014 America is radically different from 1967 America precisely because of the racial composition of the country. With such drastic changes, the social capital that once held the country together is in short supply. And with such changes come consequences.
What was it The Economist just published about diversity? Something about the downside of diversity based on research on “ambient cultural disharmony” by Roy Y.J .Chua, of Harvard Business School, I believe:
Tension between people over matters of culture, he says, can pollute the wider environment and reduce “multicultural creativity”, meaning people’s ability to see non-obvious connections between ideas from different cultures. “Ambient cultural disharmony” persuades people to give up on making such connections because they conclude that it is not worth the trouble.
The downside of diversity, January 21, 2014]
The security measures required at Super Bowl 48 are a metaphor for the changes in America. A Police State is required to keep the peace in—to paraphrase Chua—the “polluted wider environment created by tension between people over matters of culture”?
Symmetrically, there apparently will be plenty of seats available (“18,000 Super Bowl Seats Still Available”) for the 48th version of the game as well, now that the US is an increasingly heterogeneous empire, with a Police State required to hold it together.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Speaking at the United States Conference of Mayors on Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have “earned the right to be citizens.”
The longer you think about that sentence, the more impossible it is to get your head around it. This lunatic actually said that illegal aliens earn the right to be American citizens by violating American borders and American laws. Yet he is not some smelly, drug-addled derelict spouting self-evidently insane gibberish on a street corner, but the Director of Homeland Security.
Johnson, who had earlier served as general counsel for the Department of Defense under Obama from 2009 to 2012, told the more than 270 mayors in attendance that enforcing immigration law was one of the main missions of DHS.
That is, it is a main mission for him to enforce laws that he wants us all to know he does not believe in.
Then he concluded his remarks by calling for “comprehensive, common sense, immigration reform.”
That’s a lot of syllables to waste on the word “amnesty.”
The chances of a guy like this effectively securing are borders are nil — which of course explains why he has the job.
The Department of Homeland Security, like the rest of the Executive Branch under Obama, has degenerated into farce. It is dedicated to this nation’s downfall. The only thing protecting America at this point is the incompetence of Obama and the kooks he appoints.
On a tip from Henry.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Don’t let Goldman Sachs International Chairman Peter Sutherland lull you off to sleep with his pompous, soporific drone. What he is talking about here in front of the Select Committee on the European Union for Home Affairs, Health, and Education is soft genocide through displacement. Permanently altering the demographics of Western countries — i.e., replacing the people who live in them and made them what they are with the people who live in the Third World and made it what it is — is not a bug in liberal immigration policy. It is the central feature:
Via Kitman TV:
“The demographic challenges in a number of European member states, however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states, is absolutely unquestionable in terms of a crucial dynamic for economic growth. A declining and ageing population is destructive of prosperity… So demographics are a key element of the debate, and a key argument for the development of—I hesitate to use the word because people have attacked it—multicultural states. It is impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the alternative argument can survive, because states have to become more open in terms of the people who inhabit them…
Sutherland goes on to denounce Europeans “who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, which is precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”
There won’t always be an England — or a Europe, or an Australia, or an America — if the globalist liberal elite has its way. One great big Third World hellhole with zero upward mobility or recognition of individual rights and responsibilities will be much easier for them to rule over. The European race has a very limited place in the master plan.
The Final Solution for white people won’t involve gas chambers and concentration camps. A combination of abortion, promotion of perversion, disincentives to marry and have kids, open borders, and easy access to welfare by foreigners will accomplish the task.
On a tip from DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Pedobear – the thin end of the wedge
On Thursday 18th September Russia’s President Vladimir Putin criticised what he called ‘excesses of political correctness’ in ‘Euro-Atlantic’ nations, referring to the ruling earlier this year in the Netherlands where a ban was overturned on a pro-paedophilia party.
His bold comments were made at the Valdai Discussion Club’s annual meeting at a Kremlin backed delegation of scholars, ministers and foreign dignitaries in north-western Russia, where among other things he vigorously defended the cosiness of traditionalism, dismissed the cultural molestation known as multiculturalism, globalisation, the ‘unipolar world’ - and the erosion of Christian values manifesting as a social focus on heart warming, pill popping, gender-bender genital mutilation.
Such comments coming from a world leader highlight a Fascist-left agenda which enforces ‘tolerance’ for the cultural eviction of the western peoples as a moral imperative.
But his words could be taken further. It could be said regarding Cultural Marxism, and the total political correctness it spawned to impose it, that Newspeak ‘sexism,’ ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ doesn’t even exist.
‘Neither does ‘Islamophobia’ (the irrational fear of being blown up), or ‘patriarchy,’ or ’white supremacy.’ But that’s not to say there isn’t genuine racial hatred: A bunch of black ‘youths’ beating up white families at the Wisconsin State Fair is evidence of that, Nor can it be said that homosexuals aren’t despised: Savage Muslim attacks in quaint Parisian suburbs account for that, too.
And here lies the point: Social justice twinned with political correctness means that only straight white males (in particular) can be viewed as ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ and somehow defective. With everyone else it’s ‘cultural’ or blamed on poverty… like poverty causes 20 black men to gang rape an eleven year old Mexican.
This means, perversely, that acknowledging the epidemic of black on white crime is ‘racism.’ It’s intolerant ‘Islamophobia’ to suggest, regarding Islamofascism, that future immigration from this demographic (miscalculating a liberal western influence on them) should be curtailed in the interests of national security and cohesion.
It means it is ‘sexism’ to assert that men and women on average have differences and that this is why disparate outcomes can be expected in their selected career choice. The useful feminist hate-word ‘misogyny’ is approved. The counter word ‘misandry’ isn’t. They know the way language shapes thought.
That’s why it’s not racist ‘hate speech’ to say that those who suffered under apartheid in South Africa fought against ‘white oppression,’ but the New York Times will damn as ‘anti-Semitic’ references to ‘Jewish oppression’ regarding Palestinians in the West Bank. Their only consistency is that white people are bad.
Armed with this hammer and sickle lexicon and social perception monopoly, the establishment Fascist-left’s army of ‘oppressed groups,’ their Stormtroopers, are encouraged to be professionally offended like proletariats in the early 20th century, a game which so far has only claimed the lives of over a hundred million souls.
Manufactured grievance being a valuable commodity, they stoke the furnace of ‘creative destruction,’ tearing down the ‘oppressive’ west which they hate – even though illegal immigrants in boats die to get there.
They are the authoritarians who call themselves ‘liberal’ while craving status and demanding unfair equality, the ideology of mediocrity. Whatever they fight for, it has nothing to do with rights – if it undermines western society they promote it.
Like paedophilia, which still inspires a healthy revulsion, but like heritage, culture and family, they are working to break down. How long before we hear of peadophobia: The irrational fear of those who want to have sex with children?
And if their Mickey Mouse words and social constructs do exist as defined, why not? It would be a word like the others, designed to frame reality to their liking.
Some of those working to liberate paedophiles today are far-left literary icon Allen Ginsberg, who during his lifetimesupported boy-love advocates, and gay rights OutRage! leader Peter Tatchell, the latter forced by paedophobes to backtrack after claiming ‘the positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-western cultures.’
The key to breaking their spell, and the Fascist-left knows this, is that once a people is free to be itself without fear and loathing, everything else, as Winston Smith observed in 1984, will follow.
As Putin remarked, people in western nations are ‘embarrassed and afraid to speak about their religious beliefs.’ And as long as this is so, everything will carry on. They will invent new forms of psychological rape – their weirdly new neologism ‘white privilege’ putting the gullible into states resembling post-traumatic stress.
Like Mao’s heartless Cultural Revolution, political correctness is a similar attack but on European consciousness. Inevitably then the first step of self-defence is a negation of it. To come to a state of mind where if one doesn’t agree with cultural genocide, they have a different opinion, they’re not ‘racist’ or bigoted. From this follows the control of culture, with that political power.
And this is liberation, not pioneering ‘hate-denial,’ a term which the Fascist-left would use. It is the recognition that only a society which embraces debate instead of criminalizing speech is the only one worth living it. It is respecting the notion that it is a human right to offend and it’s a human right to choose not to be offended.
Earning the ire of his comrades, Christopher Hitchens wrote: ‘Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.’
It’s odd because no politician ever, at least in the mainstream political parties, has ever uttered a word about another dramatically important issue affecting British people’s lives much more profoundly than the country’s European membership.
I refer to the mass immigration, legal and illegal, of so-called economic migrants as well as political refugees and asylum seekers, genuine and bogus alike, that has inundated the country with a number of people from all over the world so large and so unmanageable that nobody knows exactly what it is.
I said it’s odd but in fact it isn’t. There’s a crucial reason why the decisions about mass immigration have been taken by the various successive governments from the post-war period to now without bothering to find out what the people actually wanted.
Because politicians know extremely well that the vast majority of the British population do not want this large-scale demographic experiment performed on their own skin, as all opinion polls clearly show.