Social Unrest and Global States of Combustibility 2010

Social Unrest and Global States of Combustibility 2010

The Economist says that 2010 could be a year the sparks unrest in the Global Tinderbox: “IF THE world appears to have escaped relatively unscathed by social unrest in 2009, despite suffering the worst recession since the 1930s, it might just prove the lull before the storm. Despite a tentative global recovery, for many people around the world economic and social conditions will continue to deteriorate in 2010. An estimated 60m people worldwide will lose their jobs. Poverty rates will continue to rise, with 200m people at risk of joining the ranks of those living on less than $2 a day. But poverty alone does not spark unrest—exaggerated income inequalities, poor governance, lack of social provision and ethnic tensions are all elements of the brew that foments unrest.“

States of Combustibility Map:

We are surprised to see Argentina in the high category, as there has been quite a bit of positive news on the stability of this country with lots of alternative investors, like Doug Casey, promoting real estate and agricultural investments.

Mexico, however, is a given, and should probably ranked in the very high category. This country is a disaster, as evidenced by the thousands of deaths on the northern border related to narcotics trafficking, gangs, and mafia. Couple that with a population that has no jobs, and is now losing revenue from family members in the US, and you can have a serious breakdown in social order. It would be no surprise if these local wars make their way across the border into Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

We think the Very High rating for the Middle East is dead on. If World War III is going to break out, this is where it is going to start. With religious wars spanning millennia , and resources  underground being drastically reduced through increased consumption around the world, it’s no wonder that this part of the globe is what one could deem a current SHTF scenario, and it’s only going to get worse.

It is also interesting that The Economist rated China as “High” risk, what with all the positive news about the new capitalist leanings and increased freedoms for their people. Here at SHTF Plan, we don’t doubt this rating one bit, considering the fact that all the hooplah about China being “decoupled” from the US economy and being the engine that’s driving the world, is just that, hooplah. Any economic problems in the USA are going to have a direct and immediate impact on China. End of story. That being said, if the mainstream is so incompetent as to see this relationship, I don’t think their competency can be trusted about understanding capitalism and how it functions in a politically communist system.

We do wonder about the USA. For the most part, things seem stable now, and save a few days of tea parties in 2009, nothing seems to be brewing. Though many have lost their jobs, the poverty levels have not increased significantly, at least not significantly enough to drive millions of people into the streets across major cities in the entire country. However, poverty, as opined by The Econmist, is only part of the combustibility equation, so we must consider the other aspects noted in the article:

  • Exaggerated Income Inequalities – This is a potential time bomb, as private sector, hard working Americans are seeing their 401k’s deteriorate, the values of their homes collapse, and their wages decline. All the while bankers and financiers on Wall Street pay themselves hundreds of thousands and multiple millions of dollars in bonuses. On top of that, the average salary of a government employee in America is almost double that of the private sector. Eventually, the plebs are going to realize that they are doing twice the work for half the pay, in some cases, fractions of pay. Will this happen in 2010? Maybe not, but it seems that income inequality could easily become an issue that sparks unrest.
  • Poor governance — Do we even need to go here? Really? The people have already had enough. When 90% of America calls Congress to reject the TARP bailout program prior to the vote, and then Congress pushes it through overwhelmingly, what is that? Good governance? How about raising property taxes, adding new health care taxes, eliminating Bush’s tax cuts and even taxing plastic bags from grocery stores? Is that considered good governance when your constituents are losing their jobs, defaulting on their credit cards and having problems putting food on the table?
  • Ethnic tension – Racism is not dead in America just because Barrack Obama was elected President. We can play these games all we want, but white people, black people, hispanic people, asian people — we have a hard time getting along. I mean sure, we get along for the most part and we’re cordial and all that, especially while everything is going smoothly in the system, and their isn’t a hiccup. But any number of events can set off this powder keg — with anti-immigration protests being just one. There’s a reason that Rodney King’s famous line, “Why can’t we all just get along?” still gets chuckles nearly 20 years later no matter what color the person is that makes the joke. Because the point being made is apparent to everyone that hears it.
  • Lack of Social Provisions – Maybe everything seems to be ok right now insofar as the recipients of social distributions are concerned, but at the rate we are going, social provisions MUST be cut. Look at California, just one of many examples. California is so broke that it is going to have to pull the plug on some social programs. What happens when welfare, medicare, medicaid, unemployment assistance, or a host of other programs need to be cut? Sure, the Federal government may bail out the states — at first — but then they themselves go broke, and they  have to make cuts. Those living on the very edge will lose what little support they had, and then the SHTF.

The Economist focuses on the risks of social unrest in 2010. While the above points may be on the back burner for now, they are slowly simmering. Serious civil unrest, the kind that might warrant a Medium or High risk rating, does not seem to be likely this year. Though, this may be argued by a number of other forecasters who see this as a distinct possibility for 2010.

Rather than making a forecast that predicts that we will either have civil unrest or we won’t, we’ll try to make our views as vague as possible, so that a year from now we can say we were right no matter what happens: Maybe social unrest in America on massive scales is not probable, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility


Want to share YOUR story with our dynamic and rapidly growing audience?
Click here to become a Contributor.

Blaming Whitey

Blaming Whitey

Get Whitey

Get Whitey

No One (White) Is Responsible for Anything.

That’s the screaming headline of the Rev. David L. Ostendorf’s lead article at Imagine 2050, the web publishing arm of the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based “civil rights organization.” Mr. Ostendorf is upset that White America is not being browbeaten into collective racial guilt over the Gulf Oil Spill.

Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, is White. The BP Board of Directors is another inexcusable collection of pale faces. BP has failed to contain the Gulf Oil Spill. Thus, White America is responsible for this ecological disaster, as White Americans and their European cousins belong to the same race.

Among our other racial sins, White America is to blame for slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the failure of “comprehensive immigration reform,” the plight of blacks, the failures of American energy policy, and the 2008 recession and financial crisis on Wall Street. Whenever Whites are involved, Ostendorf doesn’t hesitate to wag his sanctimonious finger and make group judgments.

These are the same people who demonize us as “racists” and “anti-Semites”  for pointing out that blacks commit a disproportionate number of rapes, robberies, and murders in America or that Jews are overrepresented in corrupt Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs. They also like to pull out and wave the magic wand of individualism whenever these legitimate grievances are raised.

There is a clear anti-White double standard: when White individuals engage in bad behavior, Whites as a race are to blame; when Jews and non-Whites engage in bad behavior (or fail in their responsibilities), either the non-White individual or Whites are blamed.

In David L. Ostendorf’s twisted imagination, Whites are never held accountable for their actions. What planet does this guy live on?

George W. Bush was blamed and held accountable for Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, and the Wall Street financial crisis. The GOP was held accountable for outrageous levels of government spending, pushing amnesty in the teeth of overwhelming grassroots opposition, and two endless wars in Eurasia. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

I can think of several other recent examples: in spite of his seniority, Arlen Specter lost the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania; Bob Bennett lost the Republican primary in Utah; Larry Craig was shamed out of the Senate in Idaho; Reverend Ted Haggard was exposed to public ridicule and lost his former lucrative position in the National Association of Evangelicals; George Allen lost his Senate seat in Virginia after his “macaca” moment. White politicians and public figures are held accountable for their actions all the time.

It is blacks who are never held accountable for their actions. Jesse Jackson cheated on his wife and fathered a child out of wedlock. Yet he remained a credible public figure. Al Sharpton was not discredited by the Tawana Brawley fiasco or the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist and serial adulterer, but now looms larger than George Washington in the American pantheon of heroes. In the current environment of political correctness, comedians are terrified to crack jokes about Barack Obama lest they be accused of “racism.”

Blacks have destroyed almost every country in post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa. They have laid waste to Detroit and numerous other American inner cities. It is more dangerous to spend a night on the streets of Chicago than to patrol the front lines of the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Blacks have never been held accountable for decades of consistent underperformance relative to Whites on standardized tests.

Every excuse in the world is made for blacks. Their plight is laid at the feet of nebulous unquantifiable abstractions (which, unlike IQ, leftists are sure exist) like “the legacy of slavery” or “the white racial frame” or “structural racism.”  Amazingly, blacks can succeed at basketball, but not in physics. The “structural racism” of academia (which includes millions of dollars alloted for multicultural centers and diversity hires) must be holding them back in a way that professional sports is not.

If the President of the United States was White and the CEO of BP was black, Rev. David Ostendorf would be defending BP and attacking the White House right now. The Left savaged the Bush administration for its “slow response” to the devastation of New Orleans. They would undoubtedly be pushing the same narrative today if the roles were reversed.

Barack Obama’s race has determined their response. Far from being irrelevant, race is the best predictor of their attitude on any given subject. Obama is forgiven for his neglect of Louisiana; Bush is excoriated. Arizona is compared to Nazi Germany for protecting its border; excuses are made for Mexico. Whites are blamed for “hate crimes”; blacks cannot be blamed for violent crimes.

There is at least one element of consistency in all this: in every case, Imagine 2050 tows the most anti-White line possible. Where they stand has never been clearer than in this article.

The term “racism” is a rhetorical ploy to dupe Whites into surrendering their racial interests. As we see here, racism against Whites is perfectly acceptable in self-described “anti-racist” circles.

White Nationalists learned this lesson long ago. Those new to our circles would be well advised not to take the rhetoric of our opposition at face value.

A Brief Sample of the Anti-White Reaction to Arizona

A Brief Sample of the Anti-White Reaction to Arizona

ARIZONA’S DREADFUL ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of LA Cardinal Roger Mahony, 18 April 2010:

What led the Arizona legislature to pass such a law is so obvious to all of us who have been working for federal comprehensive immigration reform: the present immigration system is completely incapable of balancing our nation’s need for labor and the supply of that labor. We have built a huge wall along our southern border, and have posted in effect two signs next to each other. One reads, “No Trespassing,” and the other reads “Help Wanted.” The ill-conceived Arizona law does nothing to balance our labor needs.

The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That’s also nonsense. American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation. Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers? Are family members and neighbors now supposed to spy on one another, create total distrust across neighborhoods and communities, and report people because of suspicions based upon appearance?

This is delusional. The government has not finished the border wall, and the people at the top never intend to finish it. The government hasn’t effectively enforced immigration law since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback in the 1950s, and the signs the anti-White regime has been flashing for decades now read “Free Stuff, Come And Get It!” and “Welcome Non-Whites!”

More than anything else it is mass immigration that brings distrust and suspicions based on appearance, and more than anyone else it is the anti-Whites in media and government forcing this upon us. The Nazism-as-the-epitome-of-evil theme is ever popular, especially in the venom aimed at Arizonans. It indicates the depth and breadth of jewish influence on culture and thought.

The “Russian Communist techniques” were largely jewish techniques. The chilling totalitarian grip of political correctness has increased exactly as jewish influence and power has increased. To the extent “Russian Communist techniques” are already present in this country – be it laws against free speech, free association, or people being encouraged to turn in “racists” and “haters” – jews are the prime source. In earlier times, pre-Vatican II, a Catholic clergyman would have understood and might have forthrightly said as much. Father Coughlin also delved into economics and politics, but unlike Mahony Coughlin sided with the common man, not the aliens or plutocrats.

Obama Seeks Immigration Overhaul, Slams Arizona Law, Bloomberg, 23 April 2010:

“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said. It also may hamper trust between residents and law enforcement authorities, he said.

He said he has instructed U.S. authorities to monitor the state’s actions and to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the legislation.

“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”

Obama, the ostensible president of the United States and commander in chief of its armed forces, is obviously more concerned for the welfare of invading aliens than the citizenry of Arizona. In this Obama is only slightly worse than his pro-immigrant predecessors, Bush and Clinton. There has been no “failure to act”. The lack of action has been completely deliberate. Mission accomplished, as planned.

For years members of the anti-White regime have sympathized with a surreally constant “12 million” “hiding in the shadows”. Some now are beginning to pretend that the number has actually decreased. The truth is that nobody knows how many interlopers there are. All we do know is that they have no reason to hide. The regime has made it clear that they have no intention to find illegal aliens, much less deport them.

Not in my state: Anti-immigration law doesn’t reflect the beliefs of Arizona’s people, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Washington Post, 23 April 2010:

As an immigration bill that nationally embarrasses Arizona becomes bad law, our best hope in my hometown is that the rest of America doesn’t do to Arizona what Senate Bill 1070 requires our police officers to do to people with brown skin: “profile” them based on stereotypes and insufficient information.

Our state is frustrated. We have become ground zero in the battle over illegal immigration because of years of lapsed federal border security. This week that frustration exploded, thanks to hateful political opportunists such as state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the legislation, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is already under investigation by the federal Justice Department for alleged violations of civil rights.

We in Arizona do respect the Constitution, just as we respect the hard work and sacrifices of the many immigrants who have contributed to making our state a diverse, welcoming place. That respect has driven a series of massive, passionate counterprotests to this legislation, and it will continue to drive opposition from the center, the left and the moderate right. The opponents of S.B. 1070 are many in Arizona, a majority who can no longer be silent if the price of silence is allowing the vocal, spiteful few to rule: All of us, from business leaders to police chiefs, elected representatives to church groups, will continue to pressure Gov. Brewer. As we see it, the governor must call a special session of our legislature to fix the act’s myriad flaws.

Until she does, we will explore every option available to quell the fear and frustration that have become rampant here. Already, I have called a special meeting of the Phoenix City Council to establish standing to sue the state on the grounds that S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of the federal government.

Where the archbishop only alluded to appearance the jewish mayor lays it out plainly – he thinks the law is not good for people with brown skin. Whites in Arizona, and indeed the entire country, don’t want to be branded as “racist” or “anti-semites”. They don’t want to say “we don’t want to live around and be attacked by non-Whites”, lest they be attacked by non-Whites for saying so. So instead they say “we want our laws enforced”, and are promptly attacked by non-Whites anyway. The jewish mayor and other “people of color” are the ones who so bluntly associate illegal immigration with brown skin. It’s one of the few things they’re actually being honest about. Whites aren’t trying to be dishonest in avoiding the subject. They’re afraid of the consequences of discussing it.

Another common theme in pro-brown/pro-invasion rhetoric is the suggestion that politicians who seek to do what voters want are “political opportunists”. Oddly, nobody ever gets accused of that when they’re pandering to latinos or jews. Every politician, for or against, knows immigration, put to a vote, would lose. Full of hate and spite, members of the anti-White regime try to stereotype anyone who wants to restrict immigration as hateful and spiteful. We’re all equal, but they alone know best what’s in everyone else’s interests. They are more than willing to frustrate our desires and direct fear at us while they self-righteously defend their heroes, the invaders who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to invade our country.

Phoenix is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Hispanics fear profiling under new Arizona law, AP, 24 April 2010:

Arodi Berrelleza isn’t one of the targets of Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration – he’s a U.S. citizen, a high school student from Phoenix.

But the 18-year-old said he’s afraid he’ll be arrested anyway if police see him driving around with friends and relatives, some of them illegal immigrants.

“If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he’s going to stop me,” Berrelleza said. “What if people are U.S. citizens? They’re going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin.”

Berrelleza’s concerns were echoed by Hispanics across the state Saturday, a day after Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling despite Brewer’s assurances.

Supporters dismiss concerns about racial profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. The measure’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, said opponents are using racial profiling as a cover for their true concern – deportation.

“This is not about profiling. They’re worried about the laws being enforced,” Pearce said.

Immigrant advocates say the bill could worsen an already tenuous relationship between law enforcement and Hispanics in Arizona.

State Sen. Rebecca Rios, a Phoenix Democrat and fourth-generation Arizonan, said she’s concerned about her 14-year-old son being harassed by police because of his brown skin, black hair and dark-brown eyes.

“I don’t want my son or anyone else’s son targeted simply because of their physical characteristics,” Rios said. “There’s no reason I should have to carry around any proof of citizenship, nor my son.”

Fear is another major theme. The conventional anti-White wisdom is that White fears are imaginary and illegitimate because they are based on greed, laziness, or ill-will toward others; but brown fears are tangible and legitmate because they reflect a sincere fear of those crazy, nasty White people. This skewed view filters down even to 18-year-olds who, if they’re brown, feel free to express themselves about everything the regime has deliberately and actively encouraged them to fear. Meanwhile 18-year-old Whites are indoctrinated to fear their Whiteness and the thought that they might have interests as a White person.

One deliberately encouraged false fear is that illegal aliens will stop cooperating with the police. It ignores the reality that the invaders have defied the law to get here, and if they were interested in cooperating they would leave. Deporting them would prevent them from being either perpetrators, witnesses, or victims of crime – making the whole issue of cooperation with the police moot.

In Rebecca Rios we also see clearly the Trojan Horse nature of immigration. After four generations Rios still feels like an alien, despite her political power. She blames us for this, and sides with the aliens, “brown” like her, even though they just snuck across the border. I can understand that. I have similar feelings, except my distrust is for “people of color”, and my affinity is for Whites.

Fifty years ago the census didn’t even count latinos. Now we’re informed that they’ll be taking over. It’s entirely due to immigration. Why should Whites stand by and watch this happen? Why shouldn’t we do something to prevent ourselves from being overrun by people who so dislike us, even after spending generations among us? We shouldn’t.

Arizona immigration law protesters urge action, Reuters, 25 April 2010:

Representative Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, called the new Arizona rule that police determine if people are in the country illegally a “serious civil rights catastrophe that Republicans in Arizona are unleashing on immigrants.”

“I am going there to let the people of Arizona know that they are not alone in fighting against bigotry and hatred,” said Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat.

“I have not seen the Latino community nationwide react in such a forceful way to an attack on immigrants since 2006, just after House Republicans passed a measure to criminalize and deport all undocumented immigrants and their families,” he added.

Immigration is a bitterly contested issue in the United States, where some 10.8 million illegal immigrants live and work in the shadows. But until recently it has been eclipsed at the national level by issues including healthcare and financial reform, angering many Latino supporters of Obama.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, asked on CNN’s “State of the Nation” if Hispanic-American voters might be stay home without a serious effort by Obama to deal with immigration this year, said that although it was a national issue, “there is a problem in the Latino community. They see it as a civil rights issue of their time.”

ARIZONA PROTESTS

Echoing this sentiment, Ramon M. Garcia, an activist who traveled from Tucson to take part in Sunday’s rally said, “I feel very strongly that the law is extremely unconstitutional and racist, and it violates both human and civil rights.”

More hate-filled latino supremacist bigots hypocritically hyperventilating about bigotry and hatred. Like Phil Gordon, and in strong contrast to White pundits and leaders, these non-Whites unabashedly see politics, and immigration in particular, through a brown lens. If non-Whites are so disturbed by the supposed bigotry and hatred of Whites, then why do they want to live among us? I don’t think they are disturbed. But they know we are.

Note Reuters’ sympathetic reference to the supposedly shrinking number “in the shadows”. The major media outlets keep immigration in the shadows when it suits their agenda, which is most of the time. Throughout the last presidential campaign there was a virtual media blackout on the subject. What they do report is hopelessly biased in favor of immigrants and immigration. Immigration hasn’t been “eclipsed” by healthcare or the bailouts either. It is considered “racist” to mention the links between these things, and other than an occasional “YOU LIE!” the links are actively ignored by the media and politicians. Immigration has thus been effectively disassociated from its role in both healthcare and the bailout ripoff. In a healthy country, with a government loyal to its citizens, the wisdom of extending free medical coverage and credit to “undocumented migrants” would have been strenuously debated.

Arizona rep.: Overturn ‘this unjust, racist law’, Philadelphia Daily News, 26 April 2010:

Civil-rights activists called on President Obama yesterday to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants and promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure takes effect.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.

“We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law,” said Grijalva.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking yesterday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize “freedom walkers” to challenge the Arizona law.

“We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest,” Sharpton said.

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants, AP, 26 April 2010:

The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.

Currently, many U.S. police departments do not ask about people’s immigration status unless they have run afoul of the law in some other way. Many departments say stopping and questioning people will only discourage immigrants from cooperating to solve crimes.

In a statement Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the state’s new law would probably hinder law enforcement in dealing with more serious crimes. Napolitano vetoed similar proposals when she was Arizona governor.

“They would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve,” she said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton.

More alienated bigots openly advocating in favor of lawlessness. This is why what used to be immigration is more properly seen as an invasion. We ask them to get documents and show them and it’s painted as a catastrophic violation of their “civil rights”, which in effect means their rights to inflict harm on us, to displace and dispossess us. Meanwhile, what they’re doing – violating laws, advocating for brown interests – is painted as perfectly normal and just. It’s simply “people of color” doing what’s best for “people of color”.

Breathing While Undocumented, Linda Greenhouse, NYTimes.com, 26 April 2010:

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

The intent of the new Arizona law, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.” Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Tucson, has already called on the nation’s business community to protest the law by withholding its convention business. Such boycotts can be effective, as demonstrated in the late-1980s when the loss not only of convention business but of — horrors! — the Super Bowl prompted Arizona voters to reinstate a Martin Luther King holiday in the state.

But a boycott is a blunt instrument that can hurt innocent business owners and their employees. So I will stick to my own personal protest without presuming to urge anyone else to follow my example.

Rather, I’ll offer a reflection on how, a generation ago, another of the country’s periodic anti-immigrant spasms was handled by the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.

The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major debate within his administration over whether to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the admirable solicitor general, refused to do so.

In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. The law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents,” he wrote.

I have no doubt that but for that ruling, public school systems all over the country would be checking papers and tossing away their undocumented students like so much playground litter. Blocked from that approach, local governments now try others.

Here’s a modest proposal. Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: I Could Be Illegal.

Believe it or not the creature who wrote this turgid little fulsome screed

is the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School. She was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

If it wasn’t clear from the characteristic hyperbole, melodrama, and history lecture, yes, Greenhouse is jewish. Against the odds she somehow managed to find and marry another jew, depriving an “undocumented” of untold joy.

As Greenhouse herself recounts, as far back as 1975 the American government at the highest levels was already reneging on in its duty to protect its citizens. Yet Greenhouse pathologizes us for trying to do something to protect ourselves. Americans haven’t migrated to Mexico and forced Mexican kids out of their schools. It’s the Mexicans coming here, illegally, overcrowding our schools, squeezing out our children. Today we’re still pathetically attempting to defend ourselves. Meanwhile latinos and jews openly scheme how to best impose more hardship on us. Here’s a modest proposal for the invaders and their anti-White apologists. Go live and walk the streets among your own kind. If you think that’s an insult, an unthinkable curse, then why should we want your kind walking among us?

New Arizona law brings renewed attention to immigration reform, JTA – Jewish & Israel News, 26 April 2010:

Jewish groups are slamming Arizona’s stringent new immigration-enforcement law, but hope outrage over the measure will reignite efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform on a national level.

“I believe that it has absolutely ignited a movement across this country for comprehensive immigration reform,” said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the daughter of Jewish immigrants, who is a co-sponsor of a bill that would provide illegal immigrants with an opportunity to normalize their status. “You see people pouring out of their homes and into the streets and halls of government rejecting this notion of allowing our country to become a police state.”

The new law has been criticized by an array of Jewish groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a public policy umbrella group comprised of the synagogue movements, several national groups and scores of local Jewish communities across North America.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Jewish Democrat, referred to the immigration bill as one that “nationally embarrasses Arizona” in an Op-Ed piece published Saturday in The Washington Post.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a statement that “Allowing an individual’s accent or skin color to precipitate an investigation into his or her legal status is an anathema to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants. The bill is also likely to endanger our communities by discouraging immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement on issues of national security.”

Along similar lines, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a statement saying that “This law makes no sense — it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”

Amy Laff, chair of the Arizona chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, told The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix that she has lingering concerns about the new law.

“I’m concerned that the law will be viewed by many as mean spirited and hostile to minorities,” she said. “I’m also disturbed by the prospect of Arizona residents filing actions against law enforcement personnel whom they deem not to be enforcing federal immigration statutes to the full extent of the law.”

Whites have been indoctrinated to walk on eggshells around jews, even jews who go around “slamming” us with “outrage”. Here they are trying to stigmatize, intimidate, endanger and discourage us – all while they accuse us of doing exactly that. Here’s another modest proposal. Let’s see and understand their behavior as the anti-White “hate” it is.

Jews have an even stronger Trojan Horse tendency than latinos. Of all people it is jews who have an historic status as a nation of immigrants. Certainly Israel is more a nation of immigrants than the US. Schakowsky, Gordon, Saperstein, Hier and any jew who thinks like they do should make aliyah so as to better preach to their own people about getting brown-skinned immigrants to cooperate with Israeli authorities.

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona, San Francisco Chronicle, 27 April 2010:

Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

Newsom, while blasting the Arizona law as “unacceptable,” has expressed skepticism about unintended consequences from a city-instituted boycott, including opening up San Francisco to lawsuits if it includes rescinding already-awarded contracts. He also questioned what companies it would cover.

To address those questions, the mayor today convened a taskforce that includes representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, Controller, city purchasing office and his chief of staff to look at a “smart and effective” targeted boycott, Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker said.

Treasonous latinos and a useful idiot White mayor. Whether we see politics in us and them terms or not the “people of color” do, brazenly exploring “smart and effective” ways to target us.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law, Bloomberg, 27 April 2010:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”

In 2007 Calderon said:

I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said. “And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.

Aliens in Mexico are required to carry their documents. They are forbidden to protest or otherwise try to influence government policy.

Napolitano: Ariz. law could stretch fed resources, AP, 27 April 2010:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says Arizona’s new immigration law could siphon federal money and staff needed to go after dangerous immigrants.

Napolitano says Immigration and Customs Enforcement fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Napolitano’s department oversees border security.

First of all, the cost of enforcing immigration laws is vastly outweighed by the cost of not doing so. More on those costs at the end of this post.

Second, the expense is small compared to other government spending. For example, it costs US taxpayers about a million dollars a year per soldier to protect poppy farmers on the other side of the globe. The ICE budget for 2010 is around $5.7 billion for some 15,000-17,200 employees. Obama’s 30,000 man surge in Afghanistan will cost an extra $30 billion per year on top of whatever was already being spent there. The argument that enforcing immigration laws is too expensive is made in bad faith by people who know better. A loyal and legitimate regime would put our soldiers to work defending our country from invasion.

Is Arizona’s new immigration law unconstitutional?, The Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 2010:

US Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters on Tuesday that he has assembled a group of lawyers from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to weigh a possible federal lawsuit.

Last week, President Obama called the Arizona law “misguided,” and instructed administration lawyers to “examine the civil rights and other implications.”

Holder voiced similar concerns. He said the measure was “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials. He declined to offer a more detailed legal analysis of the law’s ability to survive a constitutional lawsuit.

“We are reviewing the law right now,” the attorney general said. “We have a group that has been together over the past few days to examine exactly what our reaction is going to be.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. He did not say why.

“What happened in Arizona is that good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law that I think is unconstitutional,” he said during a hearing with Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano told the Judiciary Committee she had deep concerns about the law from a law enforcement perspective. “We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes,” she said.

This is another surreal take on immigration. Potential abuse by law enforcement officials is more important to prevent than the actual costs and crimes imposed by the invasion.

What is the benefit of waiting until the invaders commit a serious crime? It doesn’t save money. Our country is our collective home, and home invasion is a serious crime. Discrimination is supposed to be a bad thing, so stop discriminating and deport all the invaders ASAP, before they have a chance to commit more serious crimes.

Bill Clinton Sees ‘More Immigrants’ As A Way To Reduce Deficit, Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 28 April 2010:

Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants — not fewer — to ensure its long-term fiscal future.

At a symposium on deficit reduction today (see my earlier story), Clinton said that one key to avoiding massive debt is to maintain a good ratio between people paying into the system, and those receiving payouts (through such programs as Social Security.)

That means more jobs and more people working, he said. “Which to me means more immigrants.”

Clinton spoke glowingly of the immigrant experience in the United States. “We’ve got somebody from everywhere here, and they do well,” he said.

And looking at the overall budget numbers, comparing money in to money out, “I don’t think there’s any alternative for us but increasing immigration,” he said. “I just don’t see any palatable way out of this unless that’s part of the strategy.”

Clinton didn’t mention it, but it’s not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury’s balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits.

Clinton justifies genocidal levels of immigration by claiming it’s profitable and beneficial for the immigrants. Froomkin thinks even illegal immigration is “lucrative”. No doubt it has enriched some people, including the invaders, but it has cost the rest of us our country.

AZ cities consider fighting immigration law, AP, 28 April 2010:

The cities include Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff. Their possible legal action could lend momentum to the backlash over the harsh immigration crackdown.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon criticized the measure as “economically devastating.” But he was unable Tuesday to muster support from Phoenix City Council members to jointly file suit to block implementation of the law.

The mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.

The Arizona legislature and governor passed the law because Arizona is being bankrupted by immigration. Just like California. If stopping immigration turns out to be “economically devastating” to Arizona it will most likely be due to boycotts and other economic sabotage organized by latinos and jews.

Mega March leader fears ‘ethnic cleansing’, WFAA.com Dallas, 28 April 2010:

The streets of downtown Dallas were filled with several hundred thousand people in 2006 to protest immigration reform.

At a news conference Wednesday, a diverse group of activists vowed to march again to promote justice for everyone.

“If they come in the morning for brown-skinned people and we remain silent, they may come in the evening for us,” said Peter Johnson, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “So we must stand against Arizona.”

Johnson marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. He strongly disagrees with Arizona law that now lets police check immigration status at any time.

The biggest fear? “There will be an ethnic cleansing in the State of Arizona,” said march organizer Domingo Garcia. “Once we have ethnic cleansing like we had in the Balkans, next there will be Oklahoma that has bills pending, and other states could follow.”

California is already being ethnically cleansed of Whites. The media and politicians don’t care. If anything they blame White Flight on Whites.

The following articles from various NBC affliate come with sidebars indicating reader feedback. As usual, wherever public feedback is permitted it clearly demonstrates how displeased the public is with the media and government.

Top Calif. Lawmaker: Cut Ties With Arizona, NBC Bay Area, 28 April 2010:

69% LAUGHING
16% FURIOUS
8% THRILLED

Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state’s contracts with Arizona.

Steinberg also wants to, “ensure that no new contracts are negotiated until Arizona’s law is effectively repealed.”

Rep Wants AZ Immigration Law in Texas, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, 28 April 2010:

86% THRILLED
7% FURIOUS
2% INTRIGUED
2% LAUGHING
2% SAD

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat and former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, called the law “extremely damaging and hateful.”

Van de Putte predicted failure for any similar measures in Texas and said the GOP would suffer politically for such a move.

LA Could Pass Arizona Boycott, NBC Los Angeles, 29 April 2010:

56% FURIOUS
22% THRILLED
16% LAUGHING

“More than half of the folks living in Los Angeles are Latino, and for us to do nothing is unacceptable,” he said. “For us to not to take heed to this action, which essentially is promoting this concept that every state can establish their own federal immigration laws, is just wrong and dangerous.”

The resolution introduced by [Los Angeles City Council member Ed] Reyes and Councilwoman Janice Hahn calls for the city of Los Angeles to “refrain from conducting business with the state of Arizona including participating in any conventions or other business that requires city resources, unless SB 1070 (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Acts”) is repealed.”

“On the boycott, what we want to do is make sure we understand and review every monetary transaction, any kind of funding that comes from Los Angeles (to Arizona), evaluate it, refrain from conducting business with them and make them aware that their actions have real consequences from a monetary view,” Reyes said.

“The Spanish-speaking community is the largest part of the economy. Without our participation, (Arizona) will be hurt, and if every state in this country took the same road, we could isolate (Arizona) economically so they can understand how they are mistreating and abusing people in America,” he said.

This again illustrates the willingness to work collectively to deliberately inflict harm, to force immigration upon the White community which doesn’t want it.

How Arizona’s law will hurt America: Mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute, New York Daily News, 28 April 2010:

A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.

The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently – or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Already, stories are appearing about foreign travelers crossing Arizona off their vacation lists. Who wants to visit the Grand Canyon if you could end up getting hassled by the police – or arrested – if you leave your passport at the hotel? Foreign business leaders may also think twice about visiting or investing in Arizona.

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona’s lead – as some are now discussing – the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

What’s at stake here is nothing less than America’s international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world’s strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona’s anti-immigrant law: ‘We are committing national suicide’, New York Daily News, 29 April 2010:

“This is not good for the country. I don’t agree with it,” he said. “We love immigrants here.”

Bloomberg said that because federal lawmakers have failed to tackle the thorny issue, lawmakers in states like Arizona have taken matters into their own hands.

“This country is committing national suicide,” Bloomberg said.

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can’t prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Bloomberg deemed it an invitation to harassment.

“We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here,” the mayor said. “We’re not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don’t make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let’s get on with this.”

Bloomberg long has been a supporter of immigration reform, saying current law deters international companies from sending employees through border hassles to work in the U.S. – and freezes out the highly skilled immigrants America needs.

“We don’t have doctors, and we’re not allowing people who want to come here and be doctors to come here,” the mayor said. “This is just craziness.”

National suicide? If we need more doctors, or more of anything else, it’s only because the population is larger. And that growth is driven entirely by immigration.

What’s crazy is the number of prominent politicians who will openly admit that they think genocidal levels of immigration are justified by economics and profit. It is the immigrants, and the Trojan descendents of immigrants, who are balkanizing America. More precisely it is latinos and jews who are here openly arguing that for their own good they will harm Whites who stand in their way. It is not suicide. It is two nations trying to destroy another.

New York is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Michael Bloomberg, Wikipedia:

Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is the current Mayor of New York City, and the 8th richest person in the United States with personal wealth of US$18 billion in 2010.[2] He is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial news and information services media company.

His father, William Henry Bloomberg, born in Chelsea, Massachusetts on January 19, 1906, was the son of Alexander “Elick” Bloomberg, a Russian Jewish immigrant and a real estate agent. His mother, Charlotte Bloomberg (nee Rubens), born January 2, 1909 in New Jersey, was the daughter of a Russian immigrant and a New Jersey–born mother.

In March 2009, Forbes reported Michael Bloomberg’s wealth at $16 billion, a gain of $4.5 billion since the previous year, which makes him one of the most successful billionaires in the United States during the recession, and the world’s biggest increase in wealth in 2009.

Bloomberg’s Offshore Millions, The New York Observer, 20 April 2010:

According to an extensive review of the mayor’s financial records by The Observer, even as Mr. Bloomberg was trying to counter the loss of taxes and other income from the richest New Yorkers, the foundation he controls was in the process of shuttling hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city and into controversial offshore tax havens that would produce nothing at all for the city in terms of tax revenue.

By the end of 2008, the Bloomberg Family Foundation had transferred almost $300 million into various offshore destinations—some of them notorious tax-dodge hideouts. The Caymans and Cyprus. Bermuda and Brazil. Even Mauritius, a speck of an island in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar. Other investments were spread around disparate locations, from Japan to Luxembourg to Romania.

Bloomberg says we can’t deport the aliens or the aliens will stop visiting and investing in America. He has already shipped his money overseas. Now if we can just get him to leave…

Mack (R) compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany, The Hill, 29 April 2010:

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) ripped into the new Arizona immigration law today, comparing it to Nazi Germany.

“This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause,” Mack said in a statement.

“This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in,” he added.

The country I grew up and believe in and want my children to grow up in is one where the government is loyal to their nation and defends it against all attacks. We don’t need to go back in time. Israel is the best current example of what Mack so vehemently opposes. Until Whites once again have an ethnostate of our own Mack should feel free to denounce Israel.

Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost State Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game; Some Push Boycotts, ABC News, 29 April 29 2010:

A New York congressman who called for the league to move the 2011 game from Phoenix is the latest person to push for an economic boycott against the state in protest of the new law.

“I think that when people, states, localities make decisions this monumental, they should know the full consequence of that decision,” Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y., said. “I think Major League Baseball, with 40 percent Latino ballplayers at all levels, should make a statement that it will not hold its All-Star Game in a state that discriminates against 40 percent of their people.”

Our country is flooded with aggressive, imperious immigrants as a consequence of previous decisions not to enforce immigration laws. As their numbers increase we should know that they will only become more aggressive and imperious.

Editorial – Stopping Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law, NYTimes.com, 29 April 2010:

A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects. And this is not a local fight. The poison is spreading; there is talk in Texas of passing a version of the Arizona statute.

President Obama has called the law “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. But when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize. He should act. Here’s a partial but urgent to-do list:

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS The Justice Department needs to challenge this law forcefully in court. The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.

The mainstream jewish paper of record weighs in with it’s own racial double-standard: doing what Whites want is “spreading poison” while doing what latinos want is “defending civil rights”.

At this point in the one-sided “debate” polls reveal that Arizona’s new law has strong support throughout the country.

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law, UPI.com, 29 April 2010:

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they’d support requiring their own police to determine people’s U.S. status if there was “reasonable suspicion” the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn’t prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, Gallup, 29 April 2010:

More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona’s new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

In politics numbers like this are commonly interpreted as a landslide. With immigration it is interpreted as meaning 51% of the population is “racist”.

Gallup’s puzzling new Arizona immigration poll, Media Matters, 29 April 2010:

Gallup polled adults nationally about a law that only applies to one state and that, at the time of the survey, had only really been in the national news for a few days, and assumed people who had “heard” of the new law knew what the law was about? That strikes me as odd.

It strikes me as odd that this skepticism is aimed at the people who were polled rather than at the politicians and media pundits who are paid to know these things, and who from the start have been spewing blatantly ignorant and biased views uncritically amplified and broadcast by the mainstream media. What the people polled have “heard” has been overwhelmingly opposed to the law, and yet they still strongly support it.

Immigration debate shakes US to the core, AFP, 30 April 2010:

Some of the strongest criticism has come out of New York, an immigrant magnet where 60 percent of residents are foreign born, or children of foreign-born parents.

A group of Latino members in the New York state assembly is even planning to go and chain themselves to the US-Mexico border fence.

“We’re willing to risk ourselves for the people of Arizona and other immigrants across the country,” local lawmaker Felix Ortiz told Cityhallnews.com.

Entertainers speak out on Ariz. immigration law, AP, 30 April 2010:

“Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down,” singer Linda Ronstadt, a Tucson native, said at a news conference on a lawsuit planned by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.

Colombian singer Shakira visited Phoenix to meet the city’s police chief and mayor amid her concerns the measure would violate human and civil rights.

“It goes against all human dignity.” she said.

At the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony in Puerto Rico, singer Ricky Martin denounced the law, too, saying it “makes no sense.”

In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the measure “a planned Apartheid against Mexicans.”

And officials in El Salvador urged countrymen to avoid traveling to Arizona, according to the Foreign Ministry. In Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States and the United Nations “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders also sued Thursday, and sought an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argued that federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they’re convicted.

In filing his suit, [15-year Tucson police veteran Martin] Escobar, argued that there’s no way for officers to confirm a person’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates constitutional rights. Tucson police said Escobar acted on his own.

More Trojan latinos coming out of the woodwork to side with their people.

Guillen Says Immigrants Deserve to Be Praised, NYTimes.com, 30 April 2010:

“This country could not survive without Mexicans, all the Latinos,” [manager of the Chicago White Sox Ozzie] Guillen said. “They cannot live without us. A lot of people from this country, they’re very lazy. They want to be on the computer and sending e-mail, and we do the hard work. We’re the ones who work in the sun all day long to make this country better.”

Guillen said laborers who do not speak English were sometimes exploited in the United States. “We’re abused,” he said. “They’re cheaper, or they can’t say no. They are underpaid and they are still working.”

“Believe me, we’re pretty smart,” Guillen said. “We come all the way from Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and you’ve got to cross the border and we did it. We’re going to spread all over the place. We’re going to keep moving around. We’re not leaving because we’re not doing anything wrong.”

Numerous Whites have lost their jobs for making less “supremacist” statements. Guillen won’t even be reprimanded. He’s special. He’s latino. More importantly, the Chicago White Sox owners are, guess who – Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn.

Keep Protesting The Arizona Diamondbacks, Thomas Alter, Huffington Post, 1 May 2010:

This issue does not start or end with the Diamondbacks. Major League Baseball has turned a blind eye to players with murky immigration status such as Joakim Soria, all-star closer for the Royals. There are dozens of players in the big leagues alone whose citizenship is in question. What happens when the Royals come to Arizona? What happens if Soria makes the all-star game in 2011 which is scheduled to be played in Phoenix? If a police officer sees Soria are they legally bound to arrest him? If not, than the bill is pointless. It says that you can pick on the poor migrant worker but not the million-dollar baseball player. This is precisely why the MLB Players Union has come out strongly against the bill. They realize how absurd it is that a quarter of their league would be racially profiled if they lived in Arizona. For a league that’s very conscious of their image within the Latino community, this issue could be devastating.

It’s not hard to imagine there are dozens of players in the big leagues whose citizenship is in question. We’ve got a president who’s in the same boat, in a manner of speaking.

In response to Alter’s sympathetic post someone left a pointed comment that applies just as well to all of these vapid apologists:

Like it or not, everyone on the planet cannot live in the United States.

The Associated Press: MLB players’ union opposes Arizona immigration law, AP, 1 May 2010:

Given a chance to take part in the 2011 All-Star game at Arizona, Ozzie Guillen insists he won’t go.

“I wouldn’t do it,” the Chicago White Sox manager said Friday. “As a Latin American, it’s natural that I have to support our own.”

“It’s a bad thing,” said Baltimore shortstop Cesar Izturis, born in Venezuela. “Now they’re going to go after everybody, not just the people behind the wall. Now they’re going to come out on the street. What if you’re walking on the street with your family and kids? They’re going to go after you.”

“These international players are very much a part of our national pastime,” MLB union head Michael Weiner said. “Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status.”

Nonsensical phrases like “international players are very much a part of our national pastime” are hardly surprising coming from a self-consciously ethnocentric jew like Weiner. He’ll surely have a good laugh about it with his jewish students.

Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies, AP, 1 May 2010:

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and “came out” about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t.”

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona’s new law targets Mexicans.

“This country doesn’t seem to be anti-immigrant,” said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. “It seems to be anti-Mexican.”

Here we have Mexicans breaking laws to help other Mexicans who have broken laws because they perceive the laws to be anti-Mexican. And nobody in government or media is hectoring them about “racism”.

An estimated 8,000 people protest Arizona immigration law in Chicago, chicagotribune.com, 1 May 2010:

Poland-born Ursula Domaradzki of Lombard, who became a U.S. citizen about a decade ago, said she worries authorities could use the law to harass people based on the color of their skin or thickness of their accent.

“This is a country of immigrants,” said Domaradzki, who had come downtown for the Polish Constitution Day parade and stayed for the immigration march. “I’m concerned about what’s happening in Arizona, and I fear it’s going to lead to discrimination.”

For every self-interested immigrant like Domaradzki there are surely others who don’t want to see America overrun by immigrants, because after all, if they wanted to live with latinos or Poles they would have immigrated to Mexico or stayed in Poland. Of course the media does a good job of lending their megaphone mostly to open border fanatics.

Hispanics decry Arizona law at May Day rallies, Reuters, 1 May 2010:

Activists want a repeal of the law that seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of the U.S.-Mexico border state and they want Obama to fulfill his election promise to overhaul immigration laws. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Latin America, live in the United States.

“What is happening in Arizona is making the community come out to the street,” said activist Omar Gomez in Los Angeles.

Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States and a powerful voting bloc, particularly in Southwestern states.

“Laws that make suspects out of people for no other reason than the color of their skin have no place in our country,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Mexican-American, told marchers packing into the city center.

“We must show that bigotry has no place in the United States of America,” added Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful Hispanics in U.S. politics.

In Washington, Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez from Obama’s home state of Illinois, was arrested with 34 others after they locked arms and sat in front of the White House fence, chanting Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes we can” in Spanish. The congressman was later released, a spokesman said.

In Chicago, where activists turned out to protest the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team at a game this week, tens of thousands of marchers turned out. In the Boston area, some 2,000 people marched in favor of legalizing undocumented migrants.

Anger at the law spilled over the border to Mexico on Saturday, where activists toting placards reading “Justice for Migrants,” gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Self-interested invader is closer to the truth than “undocumented migrant”.

Los Angeles is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected, AP, 1 May 2010:

A veteran sheriff’s deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

On 4 May 2010 the title had changed to “17 caught in search for deputy’s attackers” the text above was replaced with the following:

Authorities have captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants in southern Arizona as they continued their manhunt Saturday for smugglers who they say shot and wounded a sheriff’s deputy in a remote desert area 50 miles south of Phoenix.

Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop the smuggling and murders.

Thousands across Bay Area protest new Arizona immigration law – 5/01/10 – San Francisco News, abc7news.com, 1 May 2010:

In San Jose, thousands of marchers headed to an evening rally at city hall. In San Francisco, a separate demonstration wrapped up in the afternoon, but not without a bit of trouble.

Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.

They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.

“They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco,” said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. “What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.”

“Nobody is trying to make this a Nazi police state or anything,” said Minutemen member Steve Kemp. “That’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is giving police the authority to be able to question people if they’re in this country illegally.”

But, Andres Balkan of San Francisco believes, “Minute Men is a neo-Nazi organization.”

The regime encourages everyeon to see any White who stands up to defend their interests as “Nazis”. In practice it means we are subhumans who deserve to be assaulted and worse. Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop these attacks.

Dallas immigration Mega March: ‘Education not deportation’ chant thousands of students for Dream Act, Examiner.com, 1 May 2010:

[student co-cordinator, Ramiro Luna] acknowledged seeing anti-immigration reform protesters with signs, “that we would rather not have seen,” at the same time he conceded that there were some marchers, though not in the student group, with swatiska signs depicting Governor Brewer of Arizona as a Hitler with a Nazi band on her arm and Sheriff Arpaio as a KKK leader in front of a burning cross. Although Luna didn’t see any flags that were from other countries, he understood that for every 100 American flags, there was maybe one from another country and he seemed disappointed but resigned that the positive message couldn’t be 100% controlled.

Op-Ed Columnist – If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem, Frank Rich, NYTimes.com, 1 May 2010:

In this Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality, it’s politically incorrect to entertain a reasonable suspicion that race may be at least a factor in what drives an action like the Arizona immigration law. Any racism in America, it turns out, is directed at whites.

Rich, another self-righteous jew, sees the link between the Arizona law and the Tea Party, and like most “people of color” he more clearly sees that it’s about Whites trying to do what’s best for Whites than most Whites do. And he doesn’t like it one bit. In his Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality what Whites are doing is “hysteria”, “a politcal virus”, “vicious”, “bigoted”, “extremist”, “latino-bashing” – and of course we’re only imagining there is any “racism” directed at us.

It has become quite common to find Whites bashed like this in the mainstream media, with Rich and the New York Times being a steady source. However you won’t find any critique of group-obsessed latinos or jews, no matter how openly and aggressively they pursue their group interests.

Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law, Byron York, Washington Examiner, 1 May 2010:

– New York Times editorial
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post
– Cardinal Roger Mahony
– Michael Gerson, Washington Post
– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
– Washington Post editorial
– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post
– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”
– President Barack Obama
– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”

Phoenix Suns to wear ‘Los Suns’ on jerseys on Cinco de Mayo, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

[Phoenix Suns owner Robert] Sarver, who was born and raised in Tucson, said frustration with the federal government’s failure to deal with the illegal immigration issue led to the passage of what he called “a flawed state law.”

“However intended, the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question,” he said, “and Arizona’s already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them.”

Phoenix general manager Steve Kerr said he and Sarver talked about making the gesture as the team flew home from Portland last week.

“We just felt like it was important,” Kerr said. “We’re in the public eye and this is obviously a huge issue. We acknowledge there are two sides to the issue and there are a lot of dynamics. It’s a difficult thing to sift through and there are going to be differing opinions. But what we’re focusing on is we want to celebrate the diversity that exists in our state and the diversity that exists in the NBA, make sure that people understand that we know what’s going on and we don’t agree with the law itself.”

The NBA Players Association released a statement criticizing Arizona’s immigration law and praising the Suns for the gesture.

“We applaud the actions of Phoenix Suns players and management and join them in taking a stand against the misguided efforts of Arizona lawmakers,” the NBAPA said. “We are consulting with our members and our player leadership to determine the most effective way for our union to continue to voice our opposition to this legislation.”

But Kerr said “this isn’t a huge political stand as much as it is just a celebration of diversity.”

He said the Suns called the NBA for approval “and they were all for it.”

Suns coach Alvin Gentry didn’t want to comment on Arizona’s immigration bill and said he was focused on showing appreciation for the Latino community and Arizona’s diversity.

“I’m not trying to duck it,” Gentry said. “I don’t know enough about it to really comment on it. I would think that if it had anything to do with racial profiling, then obviously as an African-American I would not be for anything that had any hint of racial profiling.”

The Suns wore the “Los Suns” jerseys twice in the regular season, and won both games.

“It’s going to be great to wear Los Suns,” Phoenix’s Amare Stoudemire said, “to let the Latin community know that we’re behind them 100 percent.”

No surprise here considering who owns the Suns.

Jews good for the Suns…and vice versa, Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, 12 December 2008:

Although this game marked the first official event geared toward the Jewish community, the Phoenix Suns organization has had ties to the Jewish community since the team’s inception in 1968. Donald Diamond, one of the team’s original owners, is a Jewish real estate agent from Tucson. In fact, Sarver, whose family attended services at Temple Emanu-El in Tucson when he was a child, has said that he first became a basketball fan after receiving Suns tickets as a birthday gift from Diamond, who is a family friend of the Sarvers.

Sarver then asked the children in the crowd if they liked going to Hebrew school. When only a couple said yes, he turned to one of his sons and asked where he would be the next morning. “Hebrew school,” his son muttered despondently into the microphone.

“Our religion teaches about the importance of giving back to the community,” Sarver said to the crowd near the end of the session. “That’s very important, and it’s important to the Phoenix Suns as well.”

Sarver is of course talking about giving to the jewish community.

It’s likely that as Phoenix’s latino community grows and its White community shrinks “Los Suns” ticket sales will dwindle toward zero. In the meantime don’t expect any White, American, or European Heritage Nights.

What’s the proper response to Arizona’s new immigration law? Turn it on its head, Jeff MacGregor, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

If they were smarter, maybe they’d see that baseball offers an answer, a way out. Or a way in. Let life mimic the game. Because at its best, the game is color-blind. Apolitical. It’s a gesture of mind and body that recognizes only mind and body. Run. Hit. Throw. It transcends language and culture and country in the way all sports do. Maybe they’d see it if they were smarter. Maybe they’d see it if they weren’t so frightened and angry. You know how hot-headed and hot-blooded they are.

I mean, it’s not like I’m suggesting we stitch some kind of symbol to their clothes or anything. That’s crazy. A simple laminated card. Maybe with some sort of DNA coding. Or an embedded computer chip. GPS. Make it part of a digital national database. You just carry that special ID card at all times — or maybe wear it around your neck on a lanyard so the police can see it — and be prepared to show it to anyone who asks, and everything will be OK.

Sometimes, doing what seems like a cowardly thing takes a lot of courage. A lot of courage. And then you get used to it and it’s OK. I mean, it gets easier, right? It’s not cowardly anymore. To do these things we have to do to protect ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no bigot. Some of my best friends are from Arizona. Really.

Isn’t that clever? You can safely write all the nasty things you want for ESPN – as long as it’s about “Arizonans”. MacGregor knows how to please his bosses. But his readers weren’t pleased. See Conversations: Razing Arizona.

Arizona’s Short-Sighted Immigration Bill, Joel Kotkin, Newgeography.com, 4 May 2010:

In terms of the Arizona law, this is not simply a case of one wacko state. The most recent Gallup survey shows that more Americans favor the law than oppose it, with independents and Republicans showing strong support. Despite the negative coverage in the media, the Arizona gambit could somewhat pay off in November. A weak economy tends to exacerbate nativist sentiments, something that has been constant throughout much of American history.

You don’t have to go very far–in fact just across the California border–to see what awaits Arizona’s nativist Republicans. The Grand Canyon state’s future has already emerged there. In the 1970s and 1980s California’s generally robust economy made it a primary destination for immigrants from both Asia and Latin America. Comfortable in their Anglo-ness, papers like the Arizona Republic were dismissing California as a “third world state,” particularly in the wake of the 1992 LA riots.

Like their Arizona counterparts today, many white Californians then were sickened by pictures of mass Latino participation in looting during the riots. Many were also concerned with soaring costs of providing social services to a largely poor immigrant population. Sensing an opportunity, in 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson–locked in tough re-election battle amid a deep recession–endorsed Proposition 187, a measure designed to prevent illegal aliens from accessing public services. The measure passed easily, with support from both whites and African-Americans. The strong backing among Independents and even some Democrats helped Wilson win re-election with surprising ease.

But the long-term consequences of 187 reveal the longer-term consequences for the GOP. During the Reagan era and even the first Wilson term, Latino voters split their votes fairly evenly between the parties. But after 1994 there was a distinct turn toward the Democrats, with the GOP share at the gubernatorial level falling from nearly half in 1990 to less than a third in subsequent election. In some cases, right-wing Republicans garnered even smaller portions of Latino voters.

This is a classic case of the past waging war on the future. Since 1990 Latino and immigrant population has continued to grow. Overall, the percentage of foreign-born residents, according to USC demographer Dowell Myers, has grown from roughly 22% to 27%. One-third of Californians in 2000 were Latino; Myers projects Latinos will constitute almost 47% of the state’s population in 2030.

Of course, as Latinos integrate and intermarry, they may become less particular in their world view and share more in common with other middle-class Americans. Yet memories of slights against a particular group can overcome even economic self-interest. Blood often proves thicker than bank accounts. The tendency of Jews, a largely affluent and entrepreneurial tribe, to back often harshly anti-business Democrats has its roots in old world scars left from the pogroms in czarist Russia as well as the right-wing genocide in Nazi Germany. Some older voters recall the rabid anti-Semites once prominent in the American far-right as well as the more genteel exclusionism practiced by more refined upper-class Republicans.

In the future, today’s images of shrill, anti-immigrant right-wing activists could resound for coming generations of Latinos as well as Asians and other newcomer groups.

But instead of fighting for their economic interests, the Arizona law has handed the Democrats a golden opportunity for to engage their own demagogy on race issues. Instead of having to defend their plans to restart the economy and reorient them to middle and working class needs, Democrats now can play to narrow racial concerns among Latinos while further bolstering the self-righteousness of their affluent, white, left-wing base.

The reversion to racial politics prompted by the Arizona law ultimately does no good for anyone except “base-oriented” partisan campaign consultants, nativists and ethnic warlords. With all the long-term economic and social challenges that face this growing country, Phoenix’s folly marks an unfortunate step backward to our more shameful past and away from a potentially promising future.

Proposition 187 was never enforced. The will of all those California voters, including my entire extended family, was nullified by a single judge. Immigration fanatic and billionaire jew David Gelbaum was so freaked out by 187 that he paid the Sierra Club $100 million to stop opposing immigration. Pete Wilson supported 187 because he could see California was being bankrupted by immigration. Wilson was right. Today California is bankrupt, Los Angeles is for all intents a Mexican city, and frustrated Whites are leaving the state in droves. The cause is immigration.

Joel Kotkin echoes his tribemate Frank Rich. They see that what they face is a broad White problem, not confined to Arizona. Kotkin isn’t concerned at all about the shrill anti-White activists. But we should be. Kotkin wants us to relax and accept our fate at the hands of groups (especially latinos and jews) who nurse historic race-based grudges against Whites. Whether we relax and forget the past or not, they won’t.

Kotkin is an enthusiastic cheerleader for genocidal levels of immigration. See Another 100 Million People for the U.S., Mangan’s, 26 March 2010.

Kotkin has also thought deeply about how his own tribe has and will continue to cope with immigration and “the reality of L.A. city schools”. Q & A With Joel Kotkin, Jewish Journal, 5 May 2005:

JJ: What do you think the future holds for L.A. Jews? Do you expect them to grow in number or flee to other cities or states with better schools?

JK: Jews are weird. They will stay around long after their counterparts by class and education from other groups, including Latinos, Asians and African Americans, flee. The growth of Hebrew day schools, even among Reform congregations, may stem the outflow a bit as well. Long term, the economic conditions in L.A. may deal the worst blow, as people seek opportunity and more affordable housing elsewhere. But the Jews will be around in L.A. for quite a long time. We’re not so easy to get rid of, and I think even the next mayor, however noxious his politics, will recognize this and will try to appeal to us.

This interview contains an answer for those people who might wonder, “gee, why would jews want to support open borders and ruin their own home in the US?” Jews like Kotkin are acutely aware of their long history in diaspora, as a minority among other people, White or brown.

- – -

Here are a few recent links concerning the costs of the invasion.

snopes.com: Just One State – Cost of Illegals in Los Angeles.

The Signal – Santa Clarita Valley News – County welfare for kids of illegal aliens tops $50 million in January:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich released figures from the Department of Public Social Services showing that illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits (CALWORKS + Food Stamps) for the month of January.

Approximately 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children.

“When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education,” Antonovich said.

County seeks $2.9 million to jail illegal immigrants | Houston Politics | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

UPDATE 7 May 2010: Activists launch boycott of Arizona over immigration law, AFP, 6 May 2010:

The boycott was called by the National Council of La Raza, the largest US-based Hispanic civil rights group, which also urged President Barack Obama to redouble his efforts to see that immigration reform becomes law.

“We are calling for a boycott because this law will blow open the door to increased racial profiling, wrongful arrests, and other discrimination,” said Janet Murguia, the president of the group, who criticized the Arizona law as “not American.”

“There is a right way and a wrong way” to achieve an overhaul of US immigration policy, she added.

“The right way is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to properly regulate immigration,” she said, urging Americans not to travel to the southwestern US state.

If it gains support, the boycott could put a major crimp in Arizona’s coffers.

The boycott has received strong backing from scores of labor, immigrant and minority rights groups, and since its enactment last month, individual tourists and large companies alike have been canceling conventions and pulling hotel reservations in Arizona.

“We need to send a message to other states,” said Karen Narasaki, of the Asian American Justice Center, giving the boycott her full endorsement.

“There is a price to pay when they abuse the law,” she said.

Meanwhile, the largest US civil rights group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the law “tramples on the civil rights of Hispanic persons and… cannot be enforced without resorting to racial and ethnic profiling.”

President Barack Obama on Wednesday issued his toughest criticism yet of the law, urging Republicans to join him in beginning work on a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.

The US leader said the new law undermines “fundamental principles that define us as a nation.”

“You can’t start singling out people because of who they look like or how they talk or how they dress,” Obama said at the White House, at a reception marking the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

“You can’t turn law-abiding American citizens and law-abiding immigrants into subjects of suspicion and abuse,” Obama said.

“You can’t divide the American people that way. That is not the answer,” he said adding that he had instructed his government to carefully monitor the new law.

This rhetoric, especially Obama’s, is like Frank Rich’s Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality – angry “people of color” unite for their “civil rights” to make “racial profilers” (ie. Whites) pay, while petulant illegal aliens and their bald-faced ethnocentric enablers are magically transformed into “law-abiding” by a treasonous non-White-community-organizer-in-chief who simultaneously accuses White citizens of being paranoid, abusive, and divisive.

“Civil rights” is about “people of color” making Whites pay for being color-blind.

Locust: Remember these faces/names and where they come from, they are the enemy, they cannot be compromised with, only destroyed, remember this when the time comes.

The Suicide Meme – increasingly genocidally anti-White

The Suicide Meme

At Gates of Vienna, Fjordman tells us Why I Write About History:

I have published perhaps a million words on the Internet, yet the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is Defeating Eurabia, part of which is available online in German. For Scandinavian readers, I have contributed a long chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet (“The Suicide Paradigm”), published in May 2010 by the writer Ole J. Anfindsen who runs the website Honest Thinking.

Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. I agree with him. The main emphasis of his book is not on Islam, but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of the Western oligarchs. The same goes for my contribution to it. No, I haven’t lost my focus, but I admit that I have changed it somewhat.

The ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, is increasingly genocidally anti-White. The ideology demands self-abnegation from Whites for the purpose of protecting jews and other non-Whites. Under this regime Whites are pathologized and attacked for any attempt to organize or pursue our interests. Meanwhile non-White groups, both independently and collectively as “people of color”, are encouraged to organize and pursue their interests.

The ruling ideology is fundamentally dishonest. It was sold initially as a righteous step toward “non-discrimination” and “anti-racism” and has only gradually revealed itself as overtly discriminatory and anti-White.

I’m glad for Fjordman’s shift. Something is wrong, but it isn’t suicide. I left the following comment at GoV.

suicide:

the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind

I have not decided to take my own life, not voluntarily, and not intentionally. Likewise for the vast majority of Whites, most of whom are afraid to have more than the vaguest thoughts about what has gone wrong. This situation is imposed – it is not voluntary.

We are betrayed by leaders who lie to us about what is happening and why. They are in a position to know the truth, and they have a duty to tell it, but they do not. Instead they tell us nothing is wrong, or that the symptoms of our “suicide” – genocidal levels of immigration and anti-White discrimination – are “strengths” to be “celebrated”! Only irrational, psychopathic “racists” think something is wrong.

If you’re going to talk about this honestly instead of denying or lying about it like they do, then call it genocide. Don’t add insult to our injury by slandering us as suicidal.

To call what’s happening “suicide” flies in the face of the reality that many Whites are either ignorant of what’s happening or continue to labor under the “non-discrimination” deception, and that others are subjected to punishment for speaking out in opposition. When a group of people is deliberately guided toward extinction by deception and coercion that’s genocide, not suicide.

Leaving America

Leaving America

by Aurelia Masterson, Esq.

(Editor’s Note: Expatriation is growing fast in America. If you are considering the idea, Aurelia is a terrific resource, and Panama is a top tier destination you should consider.)

Introduction – We talk to many people who have given up on America and are leaving for good. We will discuss some issues that are related to this.

Border Crossing – The country has become a police state superb since 9/11. There is an international no-fly list. It was originally meant for people coming into the USA from abroad. Now it includes those leaving the USA going abroad. It also includes those entering or leaving by ship. As of late it includes those traveling from one state to another. Now a passport is needed to leave and of course return from the USA. To get on a plane one needs acceptable ID. Apparently not all state driver licenses are acceptable any longer. So they have effectually readied the country for a closing of the borders in and out at a moments notice. We are also told that smuggling people out of the US is a bigger business than smuggling people into the USA.

I suppose there are many who have had their passports pulled who are leaving. Could also be people wanted by authorities. Perhaps a few deep thinkers want to leave the USA and not let the authorities know they have left. The point here is you might not be able to leave much longer. A few short years ago you could just walk out of the USA without showing any ID to the USA. No longer the case. If they start to require exit visas you may find yourself ineligible. You might be in lawsuits and the opposing party files a request to keep you in the country during the case. This usually requires a bond and is not unheard of in other countries. If you owe state or federal taxes, have open judgments, owe child support, have pending court cases, etc., you may not be allowed to leave the country. When the government decides to tighten the screws they will make it very difficult to leave. You are their property, as they see it.

Banking – Banks can at any time refuse to send a wire transfer. They can ask for reasons and comply or refuse. You have no recourse. They could also report a wire as a suspicious transaction causing your account to be frozen, seized, confiscated or whatever. You have zero rights in practice anymore. It is a simple matter to stop all international wire transfers if you are not a publicly traded corporation. They could also require an invoice to send an international wire, which must be approved, by the sending bank. There could be non-compliance penalties for the bank. There could be a bank holiday imposed where the banks are closed for a period to prevent runs on the bank. The point is you might have your money stuck in the USA. This is especially likely as hyperinflation sets in due to the declining value of the dollar.

Martial Law – The USA put martial law provisions in place for ominous reasons. They can invoke martial law anytime they want. This closes the borders, highways, roads, banks, etc. Getting trapped in Rome while it is burning can be a very unpleasant experience.

Why Obama Does not Fear a Declining Dollar – He would prefer the world to stay stupid and keep taking the worthless dollar but he is a realist and knows those days are drawing to a close. A global currency the USA and UK get into will just be another piece of worthless paper. They can only live with a money system where they can control the money supply freely without any basis in assets. This way the elitists can have all the money their businesses require and the regular people can suffer when they reduce the money supply causing recessions, bankruptcies and loss of their homes, cars and goods which go to the rich through the banks who do the repossessions.

So Obama knows there is going to be change. His way out is to go communist. The USD becomes worthless script money. There will be currency controls preventing regular people from having any foreign currency. Gold and silver ownership will also be curtailed as in the past. Then comes price freezes. So wages stay the same. Prices stay the same except imports will be very costly so most things will be grown and manufactured in the USA. The dollar will be so low in value that goods will be cheap and competitive for exporting. Foreigners will come to USA to open businesses.

The labor is skilled and since they are paying in USD the labor will be cheap. Homes will be cheap, restaurants, maids, gardeners etc. USA will be third world except there will be a lot of skilled labor available to work cheap. The model will work but will require a form of communism. The country will need to be locked down to prevent a “Brain Drain”. This is where the highly educated and skilled people like doctors, engineers, etc., start leaving the USA for greener pastures. This they are not going to let happen. They are also not going to let people leave with their assets, if they have any. The dollar will be so cheap most will never be able to afford to leave.

Things Will Get Better – This is what people tell themselves as a way of doing nothing and playing the “I hope” game. The dollar will keep sinking. Hyperinflation will set in. This will cause civil unrest. Civil unrest wrecks neighborhoods; it does not take the government out of power. For this the military probably has to be involved. Unemployment will continue to grow. The police state will increase. The prison population will grow and will rapidly be converted to a cheap labor source. Notice how they are cutting out the rehabilitation programs and education in prison. They are even cutting food rations. The back end to this is if you work you get better food and more and better recreation when not working. Basically you get to go to a work camp versus a detention center. This is a cheap source of labor.

Obama is not going to let go of his grip. He has big problems regarding his eligibility for the Presidency. He is going to look to grab onto any crisis he can to take more control. He may want a few years of martial law. He may even make a crisis. If you think he is going to be moved by peaceful demonstrations, forget it. He has his own agenda, which is not yours. He is breaking his campaign promises in wholesale quantities. The people will probably do nothing. Patrick Henry is long gone. The safest bet is to watch the show from the sidelines outside the country. Get out without delay. Those who leave first, leave with the most. There are millions of people thinking of leaving but they do not make any firm plans and execute them. We know only too well how this can end. Police states always leave the door open for the dissidents to leave. They do not want them there since they will cause trouble later. They want those who are going to resist to leave. So go.

Moving Out – Generally a container is filled and shipped out. Now you can do this. Down the road I doubt it so it will be leaving with the clothes on your back. Taking a car is generally ill advised. The warranty will not carry over. The parts will be different. The new country will tax steeply the car on entry. This can be 15% to 100%, depending on where you go. If you want to go quietly there is a way. Take a few trips and bring a lot of suitcases, like five or six per person each time. You would be surprised what can fit into 12 suitcases. Pay the extra charges. Furniture is usually cheap where you will be going. Furniture could be shipped but this is going to require a container. Get your money out first, not after.

Moving Precious Metals – This is a big problem. If you have several million dollars worth call brinks, declare them and arrange transport after making arrangements in the new destination for storage. See, gold has issues when trying to move it. You will probably have to declare the gold on leaving and they may wish to tax you on the gain based on acquisition cost. Not sure. Consider selling and reacquiring it.

Firearms – There are countries where you can have guns and even carry them concealed. In some countries full auto (house or business use only no CCW of full auto), sawed off shotguns, etc., are possible. You sometimes need to be a citizen, sometimes a permanent resident but never possible as a tourist or temporary resident. Generally you can only import guns with great difficulty on both ends. We can discuss it with you but best to sell and reacquire. USA now requires permission to export guns and failure to do so could mean loss of guns, fines or prison, not sure how they would play it. Then you need import licenses and have to be a resident or citizen first to get those.

In general bringing your guns is not worth it. We talk to people who have 40 or more guns and we are sorry. There is no country where this can be done easily. A new citizen or new resident importing forty guns is going to scare them anyway and the import license never will happen. As a rule semi-auto high capacity pistols like a Beretta or Glock are usually easily purchased. A 12-gauge pump shotgun also easy. Many countries tightly control center fire sniper rifles and if you can get them they are usually assault rifles in reality with a thick barrel. If you are interested in 1000+ meter sniper shots, forget it they control that stuff tightly. In an urban environment a 12 gauge pump and a 9mm Beretta are certainly more than sufficient. The idea is to stop thinking like a gun collector. These countries will allow you to buy firearms to defend yourself. You may be restricted to one or a few firearms. The firearms will be twice as expensive or even more costly due to taxes. Some countries are more lenient than others but no country is going to let a new citizen or resident import a gun collection.

Clothes – Bring them in quantity. If you are a person wearing large size anything Latin America can be a problem getting clothes in your size. Clothes can be bought mail order. You can also have custom clothes made cheaply. All leather cowboy boots say $100. Fine Italian wool men’s suit for $250 made from scratch after you pick out fabric.

Computers – Bring them all.

DVDs – Bring them.

Books – Bring them. English bookstores have limited assortment.

Buy or Rent – Start by renting always. Gives you a chance to see if you like the neighborhood.

Mortgages – Usually 25% to 30% down and 25 year mortgages fully amortized. Need to be a permanent resident or citizen.

Pharmacies – Generally most drugs available without a prescription. Costs will be roughly half of USA prices. You should bring a starter supply of drugs you need for a couple of months so you do not have to deal with this right away. There will be equivalents or generics with Spanish names.

Dentists – They are usually pretty good, do get a referral. Their rates are about one third to one half of the USA prices. No need to have your work done before you leave.

Questions – Ask away.

Aurelia Masterson [email at: aurelia-at-panamalaw-dot-org] is an associate of Panama Legal law firm. She has years of experience in the field and now shares her observations of current events, politics, and law with the Internet community.

De Nigga Be Fucking Up

De Nigga Be Fucking Up

[This piece is shamelessly stolen from the American Spectator web site. What did these Democrat idiots think would happen when they put an affirmative action hire in the White House?]

by Peter Ferrara

Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn’t even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being reelected. Like President Johnson in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won’t even try to run for reelection.

I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership.

Is the President Above the Law?

Watergate was supposed to have established that Presidents are not above the law. If that is so, President Obama may have to resign for breaking the law in the Sestak affair.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is now the Democrat nominee for the Senate seat held far too long by Arlen Specter. President Obama induced Specter to switch parties and give the Democrats their very temporary, 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority, in return for endorsing him for reelection and promising him no opposition in the Democrat primary. But Sestak had already announced that he was running for the seat, and he refused to get out. Two week ago, Sestak defeated the unprincipled, opportunistic Specter for the Democrat nomination, continuing the perfect string of everyone who Obama endorses and campaigns for going down to defeat.

For months now, Sestak has publicly claimed that President Obama tried to keep his promise to Specter by offering him a high-ranking administration appointment if he would get out of the race. The rumor is that Sestak, formerly an Admiral, was offered appointment as Secretary of the Navy. The problem is that a federal statute explicitly provides that it is a federal felony, punishable by up to one year in prison, to attempt to bribe a candidate with a federal job, or anything of value, to influence an election.

As Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has indicated, the White House is now engaged in a coverup that is only making matters worse. Former President Bill Clinton is now claiming that he carried the offer to Sestak of an appointment to an unpaid position on a Presidential Advisory Board in return for dropping out of the race. But that story is not plausible because as a sitting member of Congress he could not have legally served on such a Presidential Board. So is the White House now lying to the American people about the matter?

Moreover, indirectly offering the job through former President Clinton still violates the statute, as does the offer of an unpaid position. That is why Issa, Mark Levin, and others are saying that what the White House is publicly admitting still amounts to a federal crime, which is an impeachable offense. Democrats are going to have to decide if they really believe that presidents are not above the law. Presently, one reason to vote Republican for president is that Republican presidents are subject to the rule of law, but Democrat presidents are not.

Misfeasance or Malfeasance?

But the Sestak affair is just the early breeze of the gathering political storm that threatens to envelop President Obama. A mysterious explosion over six weeks ago in a deep sea oil well a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico continues to gush oil to this day, heading for Gulf beaches and fisheries. The White House says the President held a meeting on it in the Oval Office on Day One. But we have not heard a word on what was done in that meeting 44 days ago, other than develop political talking points.

Democrat talking head Kirsten Powers, writing in the New York Post on May 27, explained what should have been done: “Turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration back in 1994 drafted plans for responding to a major Gulf oil spill, a response called ‘In Situ Burn.’…The idea was to use barriers called ‘fire booms’ to collect and contain the spill at sea — and then burn it off.” Powers cites former federal oil spill response coordinator Ron Gourget as believing “this could have captured 95 percent of the oil from the spill.” But, Powers writes, “the Administration’s chief response so far was to send out Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to do his best impersonation of a totalitarian thug, proclaiming that the government would ‘have its boot on the throat of BP.'”

It is too late for the fire boom plan now, with the oil spreading across the Gulf. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal quickly developed another plan to build temporary sand barrier islands off the coasts to absorb the oil and protect fragile wetlands and fisheries. The law requires federal approval for such activity. But perhaps because Jindal is a Republican, the hyperpartisan Obama Administration has failed to even respond to his proposal first made a month ago, except to say that it is studying the idea, while the oil starts to wash ashore.

What President Obama has done instead is to suspend all offshore drilling in the Arctic, at least until the causes and solutions to the Gulf spill are discovered. No applications for drilling permits in the Arctic will even be considered now until 2011. Drilling scheduled to begin this summer under already issued Alaskan leases has also been halted. Investor’s Business Daily explains how this punishes the American people, saying on May 28, “Alaska’s Chukchi Sea holds more oil and gas than anyone thought – 1,600 trillion cubic feet of undeveloped natural gas, or 30% of the world’s supply, and 83 billion barrels of undeveloped oil, 4% of estimated global resources. You can be sure the Russians won’t be as reluctant.” Nor will the Cubans and their Chinese partners expected to drill in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida’s coasts as well, just as the Brits and others have not been reluctant to drill in the stormy North Sea.

Moreover, President Obama has already begun to use the crisis to renew his political push for federal cap and tax legislation that will cripple the economy with arbitrary, unnecessary, soaring, energy cost increases. Does he plan to hold any future drilling hostage to passage of this legislation?

In the response to Hurricane Katrina, federal law specifically provided that the then Democrat Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans were in charge. The federal and FEMA role was to “support…state and local assistance efforts” with the necessary, primarily financial resources. Nevertheless, in the days after the hurricane, President Bush’s federal government was the only functioning authority, as the Coast Guard rescued 30,000 people off of rooftops. Hundreds of school buses that could have been used to whisk those people out of harm’s way were left ruined under water due to Mayor Nagin’s inaction in response to federal hurricane warnings. The partisan Governor acted only to deny and delay President Bush’s control over the state’s national guard for political reasons.

But the Gulf oil spill emanates from federal waters, which means President Obama is directly in charge, not state and local officials. And his derelictions are losing his own supporters. Democrat Powers writes, “If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we’ve gotten the Keystone Cops.” As Peggy Noonan said of the Democrats in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, “In time — after the 2010 elections go badly — they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the President’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.” Therein lies the beginning of the end.

That end will be greatly accelerated if any email, document, or other serious evidence turns up indicating that President Obama or his cronies delayed the federal response in any way because they thought the spreading spill would advance their political agenda. Or if any evidence arises that Obama failed to respond to Jindal for partisan political reasons.

Geometric Downward Spiral

Moreover, all of this is just what’s happening now. What leads me to predict President Obama’s early political demise are his numerous, enormous vulnerabilities to further adverse developments, threatening a geometrically accelerating downward spiral, for him politically, and for America substantively.

Now and for the next six months, we will be enjoying the high point of the Obama economy, the tippy top of the Obamanomics, Keynesian, roller coaster. If Art Laffer’s Coming Crash of 2011 arrives next year, or if the economy just dips into another downturn, President Obama no longer enjoys the political base to survive it. With African Americans suffering Depression-level unemployment for over a year now, even that most solid of all political bases will weaken and waver in the face of a renewed downturn.

Under the President’s leadership, Congressional Democrats continue to pile more and more taxes on the investment necessary to create jobs and prosperity, “the most punitive tax rates on investment income since the late 1970s,” as The Wall Street Journal reported on May 27. Even before Obama and the New Left takeover of Washington, the top 1% of taxpayers were already paying more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined, as the Tax Foundation has accurately reported based on official IRS data. But this is not enough for the Obamunistas, who are justifying still higher taxes saying the rich must pay their “fair share,” sort of like the last of the Romanov family had to pay their fair share.

This punitive tax piracy is already starting to cause capital flight from the U.S., which will accelerate into an outright capital jail break from America next year. That will only hasten a renewed downturn, cripple job creation, and restore rising unemployment. The American people will not endure mismanagement of the now two-year-old financial crisis into an extended depression.

Moreover, with the federal deficit already at a record smashing $1.6 trillion this year, a renewed recession next year will only cause it to soar further. How long can that go on before we arrive at Greece, where the markets refuse to buy the bonds necessary to finance the deficit, at least without soaring interest rates, which would only cause further economic decline.

Meanwhile, the Fed has long been busily creating new economic bubbles with its overly extended easy money and zero interest rate policies. Monetary policies so loose that they should be considered pornographic are creating new vulnerabilities for the President, which will arise as sudden surprises involving new dollar, interest rate or inflation scares. When the Fed finally decides it must pull back, it has laid the foundation for the bubbles to burst again, further inspiring economic downturn. Gold is already higher than the S&P 500. That is a blaring warning sign of trouble ahead.

Another blind spot for the President is energy policy itself. Those opposed to further offshore drilling need to end their hypocrisy and stop using the remaining oil and gas still available to the rest of us. Cap and tax is one of the biggest economic and political blunders in history just waiting to happen, a greater potential party builder for the Republicans than Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt combined. The American people for once will be unified in coming together to get Democrats out of office so that the obvious, huge, fat, unnecessary, cap and tax cost sitting on top of the American economy can be removed. As the price of gas climbs over $4 a gallon due to that and to President Obama’s anti-production policies, the public riot demanding immediate change in leadership will surprise establishment Washington.

Adding to all of this are the grave vulnerabilities posed by Iran successfully developing nuclear weapons, and President Obama’s foreign policy weaknesses generally, which just invite war. Devilishly pursuing the opposite of every one of Reagan’s policies, instead of Peace Through Strength, Obama is inviting War Through Weakness. If Iran launches a bloody attack on Israel, open calls for his resignation will be widespread. If Iran uses a nuclear weapon in that attack, or in any other attack against American interests, the Obama Administration will be over politically.

The President himself has laid the foundation for his biggest political vulnerability of all. He won our votes and the election in 2008 with “the firm pledge” not to raise taxes “in any form” on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Now he has already backed away from that pledge to the American people by creating a Presidential Deficit Commission, with “everything on the table,” including tax increases on working people in direct violation of the pledge. The much discussed Value Added Tax (VAT) could not be a more direct violation of the no tax increase pledge, increasing the prices of everything working families buy.

When the President directly violates the pledge that got him elected by openly endorsing such a tax increase, his resignation will immediately become a central political issue. The above problems and vulnerabilities will come together to increase the pressure for resignation to unbearable levels.

As Peggy Noonan suggested, the key will be the Democrats themselves (though she has never said a word about possible resignation). After suffering grievous losses in this year’s elections, they will have limited tolerance for the above described political pressures and chaos. With the very survival of their party at stake, the Democrats will buckle and desert President Obama, joining the calls for his resignation. At that point, with zero prospects for reelection, and unable to govern effectively, he will resign.

Learning How to Milk the Taxpayer

Learning How to Milk the Taxpayer

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday

Fourteen-year-old Cornelius Thomas slipped off a raft and drowned in a high-school swimming pool earlier this month in Alexandria, La. He had never been taught how to swim. There aren’t any “pools for kids to learn how to swim around here,” Forest Martin, the boy’s grandfather, said Tuesday as he wept.

Cornelius’s drowning reflects a problem USA Swimming hopes to highlight Thursday in a report showing that 70% of African-American children and 58% of Hispanic children have little or no swimming ability, compared with 40% of Caucasian children.

Evidence of a continued swimming gap comes as the economic slowdown has cut back opportunities for inner-city kids to swim. With the approach of Memorial Day, the official start of swim season, “some cities are cutting back on pool hours if not closing pools altogether, and they’re also cutting public-safety budgets, including lifeguards,” says Christiana McFarland, director of finance and economic development for the National League of Cities.

What kind of logic is this?  Black children are drowning so they need more swimming pools so they can learn to swim and not be in danger of drowning in swimming pools? Why not just keep them away from the water?

Why does this story sound familiar?  I did a quick search and found this from the Seattle Times almost exactly two years ago.

Nearly 60 percent of African-American children can’t swim, almost twice the figure for white children, according to a first-of-its-kind survey which USA Swimming hopes will strengthen its efforts to lower minority drowning rates and draw more blacks into the sport.

In two years USA Swimming apparently realized that it would need higher numbers and a few sob story spokesmen to have a better chance of getting federal funding.

The standard HBD reasons why blacks are more likely to drown are more muscle density and worse native judgement.  Also, while searching the topic I found another x-factor that may explain why black females in particular might not like jumping in the water: hair.

//

Article Info

Richard Hoste

Richard Hoste

Richard Hoste is the editor of the HBD blog at Alternative Right. He writes prolifically on race, immigration, political correctness and modern conservatism. His blog is HBD Books, where he regularly reviews classic and modern works on these topics.

The Coming Collapse of the United States

The Coming Collapse of the United States

A new Orthodox-Catholic model of global development will replace the last 600 years of colonial liberalism — in the long-term. In the short-term, the U.S. is still about to collapse. This is not another conspiracy theory from the blogging depths of the internet, but the newest interview with Igor Panarin in a recent issue of Economic Strategies (Ekonomicheskie Strategii 4 (2010)).

Igor Nikolaevich is a political scientist, an academician at the Russian Military Academy, and a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He holds PhDs in psychology and political science. Panarin has made a career of long-term geopolitical commentary, much of which has been far less rosy than that by a standard talking head on a major news network. Last year Panarin shocked the North American press: one of his predictions regarding the imminent collapse of the U.S. was widely publicized. That forecast was actually ten years old, but it suddenly made waves in the context of the deepening global economic downturn, in general, and the American bailouts, in particular.

In the interview with Economic Strategies, Panarin suggests that what we are seeing today is the crash of a 600-year cycle of global development. This cycle is based on two major components — the drug trade and the slave trade — the foundation of all European colonial empires, especially the British Empire. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union marked the near-exhaustion of this particular geopolitical model.

Let me remind you that since 2006, the Fed has not been providing any information about the number of dollars it prints, even at the request of the Congress. Consequently, ideologically [Americans] are not able to create a new model. Colonial liberalism, which dominated the past 500-600 years, is at the end of its journey. Marxist socialism-colonialism was a part of this colonial liberalism, developed during the information war waged by the British Empire. Marxism, in fact, was an imported project, used to suppress Russia, Germany, and other alternative financial and economic systems. Protestants were the shock force in the construction of colonial liberalism. Whether they liked it or not, the spiritual and economic components were precisely Protestant-Lutheran.

As the U.S.-dollar model of liberal colonialism ceases to exist, Igor Nikolaevich projects that it will be replaced by three key currencies: the rouble, the Euro, and the Asian Monetary Unit (ACU) — based on the Chinese yuan. When it comes to North America, in particular, the Canadian dollar may become the source of a new regional currency, because the U.S. dollar is likely to disappear as a result of the U.S. collapse. He reminds us that the Canadian dollar is supported by natural resources, and can, therefore, gain strength. However, if the U.S. smartens up and reinstitutes something like the silver dollar, then it might be possible to create a new regional currency on the Can-American basis. This currecy would allow for a relatively painless way out of the economic crisis, “Those people, who have been an influence on the geopolitical and economic situation, of course, do not want to lose power. They fear, say, physical elimination.”

Panarin believes that there is reason to forecast the collapse of the U.S. as early as July, which would be led by California. The collapse of California would trigger a default, which would have a fatal impact on the U.S. economy.

The U.S. has already taken two attempts to overcome the crisis. The first was an alliance with China, where 70% of its problems had to be moved to China. The second was a transition plan for the Amero, i.e. an attempt to redistribute the tension to Canada and Mexico. Nothing happened. Iran, all these Israeli Wars […] — these are much less convenient options to solve the global crisis.

Currently, as the U.S. continues to struggle, it is also being pushed out of the new financial model. The plan to introduce a common North American currency on March 1, 2010 and save the sinking American financial system failed.

Two years ago, a conference was held with participation by countries in Latin America, North America and the Caribbean, [at which] Mexico proposed to exclude the U.S. from the Amero zone, but not Canada. Only the United States. However, this was a preliminary decision, which had no impact […] And suddenly, when the U.S.-China relations worsened, there was a summit in the Americas, were [they] decided upon the establishment of a new continental economic organization without the United States or Canada. And this occurs a week before the introduction of the Amero…There was an information leak on the subject on the internet, even the printed bills of the new currency.

He credits China with dealing a “knockout blow to the American globalists.” The Chinese apparently offered economic assistance to Mexico, and it suddenly argued against the Amero.

What concerns me is that a few days after this historic conference [about the Amero project], all of Latin America was struck by a series of earthquakes and tsunami. We have not witnessed such seismic activity in a long time in a region, where the [ACU] will be introduced. This makes one wonder…The causes of such natural disasters may have been manmade.

The reason China wields so much influence is the fact that it won an information war with the United States:

[Americans] have already, in effect, “given away” Taiwan; China has made a number of harsh statements; this [was] actually an ultimatum. Americans have asked to visit Beijing themselves, which [was] humiliating for them.

Therefore, an alliance between China, a “large factory”, France, representing Europe, and Russia, the center of Eurasia, may turn out to be quite fruitful. Igor Nikolaevich finds Medvedev’s choice to propose the new architecture of international financial relations in Paris, which was subsequently supported by Sarkozy, rather significant. “But France must be the same as under de Gaulle”, he adds. He was first to begin “the war with the Bretton Woods system, demanding to exchange Eurodollars for 2,000 tons of gold.” Essentially, Medvedev-Sarkozy cooperation is an attempt by the global elite to find a way out of the crisis through the rouble and the euro.

Now, at the bifurcation point, France is more important for [Russia] than Germany, which, in fact, is still occupied by the U.S. troops. What are 75 thousand U.S. soldiers doing in Germany, which no one threatens? Soviet tanks left East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and other European countries 20 years ago, while the most powerful group from the United States is still on West German soil. In the 1940s, these two countries signed a secret agreement, which severely limited German national sovereignty — this is what the former heads of the German secret service describe in their memoirs.

Finally, Panarin believes that Russia is capable of reestablishing those positions that it held prior to the Bolshevik takeover. Stalin’s restoration of the territorial integrity of the Russian empire serves as historic precedent. However, Igor Nikolaevich suggests a fundamentally new model. Currently, there exists the potential of increasing Russia’s influence in Turkey, Mongolia, and Iran. Turkey, for instance, already uses roubles. This influence should be combined with the possibility of pushing the rouble into other areas, such as India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, in addition to the former USSR and Eastern Europe. As a result, Russia would become the true center of Eurasia.

Thus, the ACU-rouble-Euro model makes financial and geopolitical sense as the replacement of the U.S. dollar, according to Panarin. In fact, he proposed a global currency, ACURE, in March of 2009. Igor Nikolaevich also hopes to see the healing of a thousand-year old schism as the cultural replacement of colonial liberalism, “Today, Orthodoxy and Catholicism must interact in the process of building a new model — a model that is more just, spiritually moral, thereby creating a kind of an ideological structure, a [certain] solidarity.”

//

Article Info

Nina Kouprianova

Nina Kouprianova

Nina grew up a subway ride away from the Kremlin, and is still a proud Muscovite at heart. A PhD candidate by day, a graphic designer by night, a Japanophile and a rocker, she is a jack of all trades and master of…some!

Race And The American Prospect: An Introduction

Race And The American Prospect: An Introduction

By Sam Francis

[Vdare.com Note: The late Sam Francis was editing this collection before his untimely death. His views on race may be considered unfashionable, but are actually milder than those of every President of the United States, (not excluding Abraham Lincoln) up until the John F. Kennedy Administration. See Steve Sailer's review of this book for even more irenic views. And Sam's advocacy  of what is here called   "white racial consciousness" is still about ten times less strident than anything said by Julian Bond of the NAACP or Raul Lowery Contreras. This is the last Sam Francis piece we will be able to run—there isn't any more, although we have a five year archive, and more of his work is available at Samfrancis.net.]

The following essay is Sam Francis’s introduction to Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time, a newly published collection of essays edited by Dr. Francis. The book is available from Amazon or directly from The Occidental Press (P.O. Box 695, Mt. Airy, Maryland 21771; 301-829-2995;) $34.95 (hbk); $19.95 (pbk). This unique collection of essays, from fourteen cutting-edge experts on race, offers an incisive alternative to the politically correct dogmas of racial egalitarianism. The table of contents can be found here.

If an analogy between the Victorian sex taboo and the contemporary race taboo were to be drawn, the essays in this book are logically the analogue of pornography, or what conventional Victorians regarded as pornography. Every one of these essays deals with race in a way that the dominant culture of the present day rejects, forbids, and indeed punishes by one means or another. Every one of them deals with aspects of race—its reality as a part of the biological and psychological nature of man and its importance as a social and historical force—that contemporary culture is at best reluctant to discuss at all and absolutely refuses to acknowledge as true. At the same time, in contradiction to the stereotype promoted by “anti-racist” forces, not one of these essays or their authors expresses here or anywhere else any desire to harm, exploit, dominate, or deny the legitimate rights of other races. This book is not a tract promoting “white supremacy” or the restoration of forced segregation.

All contributors to this volume are white, well educated, and articulate; several are or have been academics or professional journalists and authors, and what unites and drives them as a group is a common concern that their race today faces a crisis that within the coming century and in the United States and Europe could easily lead to either its physical extinction, its subordination to and persecution by other races, or the destruction of its civilization.

Most readers who continue to believe what the dominant culture tells them about the meaning and significance of race will find this concern bizarre. Even if race does exist as a biological reality, it certainly has no meaning for behavior, culture, intelligence, or other traits that influence and shape social institutions. Moreover, any effort to take race more seriously is either a deliberate and covert attempt to justify racial hatred or injustice, or is at best a misguided enterprise that is all too likely to lead to hatred, injustice, and even genocide, as it has in the past. This is the conventional attitude toward race that the dominant culture in the West today promotes and enforces, and it is precisely from that attitude that the authors of these essays dissent.

The commonly held beliefs about race mentioned above—that it does not exist or is not important and that serious concern about race and racial identity leads to negative and undesirable consequences—are wrong. Yet it is precisely those beliefs that make it impossible for whites who accept them to preserve themselves as a race and the civilization and political institutions their race has created. As black historian Shelby Steele acknowledged in the Wall Street Journal ( November 13, 2003), “Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say ‘I’m white and I’m proud’ and you are a Nazi.”. Indeed, he made use of the widely shared (by non-whites as well as whites) demonic view of whites to reject and deny any white claim to their own racial identity:

No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time—through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny.

Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, as well as Hispanic leaders Cruz Bustamante and Mario Obledo, have no problem exulting in their own racial identity and the political power they expect such solidarity to yield. They exult in language that is explicitly anti-white, in the most primitive and threatening terms. Yet they are seldom called to account for it. When Mr. Obledo, proclaimed a few years ago, “California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don’t like it they should leave—go back to Europe,” he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton soon afterward. It is not very likely that a white leader today who said, as Senator Stephen Douglas in a debate with Abraham Lincoln in 1858 did say, “I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever” would be awarded anything. Douglas’s comment (and many similar ones) expressed a sentiment more or less parallel to Mr. Obledo’s, though Douglas did not go so far as to invite non-whites to leave the country (it was Lincoln himself who did that). Douglas in fact won the election and was the Democrat’s national candidate for president two years later.

In contrast to Mr. Obledo, when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in December 2002 remarked that the country would have been better off had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election, he was denounced from both the political right and left and hounded into resigning his leadership position in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Lott had said nothing about race, and there was no evidence he was even thinking about that aspect of the campaign; but he was obliged to engage in protracted and repeated retractions, anyway—all to no avail.

One main reason for the obvious double standard is that non-whites are easily inflamed and mobilized by the slightest appearance of white identity, and their mobilization can have disastrous consequences for institutions—the Republican Party—that seek or depend on non-white votes or market patronage. Yet these are by no means the only reasons why whites “cannot openly have a racial identity.”

The truth is that whites deny themselves a racial identity. Mr. Steele can utter sweeping generalizations about “the extraordinary human evil” (ignoring the long and brutal history of slavery, conquest, genocide, and repression by nonwhites in Africa and Asia that persists to this day) in a major newspaper owned and managed by whites because most of the white elite will not question this kind of anti-white opinion. White tolerance of such anti-white sentiment is due to the guilt that is injected into white minds.

The consequences of this denial and demonization of whites and the civilization they have created and ruled for the last several centuries are what concern the contributors to this collection of essays. The processes by which those consequences may come about are already apparent.

White leaders no doubt assume that the multiracial future of the country will not threaten whites or the country because all races accept or are coming to reject race in the same ways they do. This assumption is demonstrably wrong. Like most revolutions, the one led by non-whites like Martin Luther King, Jr. moved from a moderate phase demanding merely equal treatment and the end of legal racial discrimination to a far more radical stage demanding outright racial privileges for non-whites. It is this radical phase that established now that threatens to become even more radical.

“Color blindness” denies a biological reality that is obviated in two ways. First, scientifically: The work of scientists like Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, H. J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, and a number of others established that race exists and is a significant factor in human mental traits. There is little doubt about this today and fewer and fewer scientists dispute it, though few also are willing to risk their careers by talking or writing about it. As long ago as 1981, Arthur Jensen itemized a host of such differences:

Different races have evolved in somewhat different ways, making for many differences among them. A few of the many physical characteristics found to display genetic variation between different races are body size and proportions, hair form and distribution, head shape and facial features, cranial capacity and brain formation, blood types, number of vertebrae, size of genitalia, bone density, fingerprints, basic metabolic rate, body temperature, blood pressure, heat and cold tolerance, number and distribution of sweat glands, odor, consistency of ear wax, number of teeth, age at eruption of permanent teeth, fissural patterns on the surfaces of the teeth, length of gestation period, frequency of twin births, male-female birth ratio, physical maturity at birth, rate of infant development of alpha brain waves, colorblindness, visual and auditory acuity, intolerance of milk, galvanic skin resistance, chronic diseases, susceptibility to infectious diseases, genetic diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia), and pigmentation of the skin, hair, and eyes.

As Kevin Lamb shows in his essay for this book, the scientific evidence for the natural reality and social significance of race is now overwhelming. As Richard Lynn shows in his essay, racial differences in intelligence and behavior patterns significantly affect such societal differences as levels of technological achievement, political stability and freedom, criminal violence, and standards of living. What kind of society and how much civilization a people creates, is clearly related to their race. Race by itself is certainly not sufficient to create civilization, but it is necessary to creating it. Non-whites may indeed create a different civilization of their own, but it will not be the same as the one we as whites created and live in, and most of us would not want to live in it.

The recognition of the significance of race does not imply or lead to “hate” or domination of one race by another, but racial differentiation does imply social differentiation. The existence of significant biological differences between groups of human beings means there will be social differences between them: differences in educational and economic achievement, personal and political behavior, and social and cultural institutions. And if there is social differentiation between races, then competition and conflict between them is also likely, especially if they occupy the same territory. “Hatred,” domination, and racial antagonism may therefore result, not as relationships to be desired or advocated, but as the consequence of the natural reality of racial differences and the effort to ignore or deny such differences.

The second way in which race has been rediscovered is as a socio-political force, the racial consciousness and solidarity discussed above that in the last century has swept through the non-white populations of the United States and the world. This rediscovery constitutes what Lothrop Stoddard in the frank language of the 1920s called The Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy and is identical to what the late Robert Nisbet termed the “racial revolution.” The “single fact…that stands out” is “that racial revolution as an aspiration is becoming increasingly separate from other philosophies or strategies of revolution.”

What has occurred in the last century, then, consists of two processes—first, the evisceration of white racial consciousness and identity, and second, the development, around the same time, of the non-white and anti-white racial consciousness that animates the emerging national non-white majority. The scientific rediscovery of race as a socially and historically significant reality of nature is part of a reaction against the “racial revolution” and can be expected to assist in the revival and relegitimization of white racial identity, but remains largely an academic abstraction understood by only a handful of scientists and scholars.

There are three general reasons why a revival of white racial consciousness and identity is needed.

  • First, we now know enough about the biologically grounded cognitive and behavioral differences between the races to be able to say with confidence that race deeply affects and shapes cultural life. Races with a lower level of cognitive capacity could have produced neither the modern West, with its scientific and technological achievements, nor the ancient West, with its vast political organization and sophisticated artistic and philosophical legacies. Nor is the inclinations of white Westerners to innovate, explore, expand, and conquer apparent among most non-white races, even if their cognitive capacities are greater than those of whites.
  • Second, whites, like any race, should wish to survive and flourish simply for their own sake whatever their merits or flaws. Even this minimal rationale for racial survival is denied to whites today because of their constant demonization.
  • And third, white racial consciousness is necessary simply as a means of self-protection. It is an integral component of the historic identity of America as a culture and a nation. As Jared Taylor notes in his essay in this volume, explicit white racial consciousness has been a commonplace and important feature of American history, a belief that has shaped the events, leaders, institutions, and norms that have defined us as a people and a nation throughout our past and in all regions.

You cannot have it both ways: either you define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race of the racial particularism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and demand that anyone who believes that race means anything more than that be demonized. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by “America” has to come from something other than its real past.

Even more dangerously, the absence of racial consciousness among whites disarms them as a group in confrontation with races that possess such a consciousness. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other non-white racial and ethnic groups are able to act and react in highly unified patterns, political and cultural. They protect what their leaders perceive as their racial interests and, in particular, to resist, denounce, and attack any manifestation of white racial solidarity.

Whites may be more or less unified with respect to objective material characteristics—income, education, residence, voting behavior, etc.—but they are not unified and indeed barely even exist with respect to racial consciousness and identity. At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as Robert Mugabe has threatened to do to whites in Zimbabwe, they will do so not because we are “Americans” or “Christians” or “conservatives” or “liberals,” but because we are white.

Given the intensity of non-white racial consciousness, the emergence of a counterbalancing white consciousness may well lead to violent conflict between the races. There is in fact an immense level of violent conflict against whites going on right now through interracial crime and terrorism; by mass immigration, legal and illegal; and by the deliberate refusal of ruling white elites to enforce their own laws and protect their own people.

The restoration of white racial supremacy in the United States today is not desirable or probably even possible. As Sam G. Dickson notes in his essay in this volume on race and the South, the core of Robert E. Lee’s personal objection to Southern slavery was that it encouraged the corruption of the whites, a corruption that cripples and weakens whites in creating free social orders and high civilizations. A race that dominates needs to establish what is essentially an authoritarian system of political and social control that inhibits the dominant race almost as much as it restrains the subject race.

Probably the most desirable and mutually satisfactory (if not the most likely) resolution of the escalating racial conflict would be the voluntary separation of races into distinct nations. There are obvious problems with such a division of the national territory—who would get which part, what would happen to those of one race who refused to leave the areas assigned to another race, who would be counted as part of a race and why, how would the separation be authorized, how would each section be governed, etc. Moreover, most white Americans would recoil from endorsing an actual territorial division of the nation for whatever reason. Racial separatism, far more than “white supremacy,” is today favored by most whites advocating white racial consciousness, but there appears to be little prospect of the larger white population embracing it in the near future. Nor is “racial federalism,” under which local communities or even whole states determine their own racial arrangements, laws, and policies, likely. The insistence by nationally dominant elites that race and immigration policies that are effectively anti-white be determined entirely by the centralized state under their own control means that localism and federalism are no more probable in race relations than in most other areas of American public life.

Nevertheless, if whites cannot expect a total, permanent, and mutually satisfactory resolution of the racial conflict through separation or federalism, they can at least work to achieve results that would protect or guarantee their own survival and that of their civilization. The political, legal, and cultural agenda on which whites should insist includes a permanent moratorium on all legal immigration into the United States, the expulsion of illegal aliens, the rigorous enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, and the removal of incentives to further illegal immigration (e.g., availability of welfare, education, and affirmative action for illegal aliens and of automatic birthright citizenship for their children); the end of all “affirmative action” programs and policies and of all “civil rights” laws that discriminate against whites and circumscribe their constitutional

rights of association; the repeal of all “hate crime” laws and “Politically Correct” policies and regulations that penalize the peaceful expression of white racial consciousness and identity; and the abolition of all multiculturalist curricula, “sensitivity training,” and similar experiments in brainwashing in schools, universities, businesses, and government. At the same time whites must seek to rebuild their own institutions—schools, businesses, churches, media, etc.—in which their own heritage and identity as whites can be preserved, honored, and transmitted to their descendants, and they must encourage measures that will help raise their own birth rates to at least replacement levels. Even these policies, however, would pit racially conscious whites against the dominant elites that continue to demand white racial dispossession and their non-white allies. Moreover, none of these measures will be adopted unless and until white racial consciousness is far more developed than it is today. Neither conventional conservative nor liberal ideologues show any serious interest in these particular measures or the racial identity they reflect, nor do either of the major political parties.

Non-white and non-Western holidays are observed in schools, by businesses and some local governments, and national leaders (including President George W. Bush). In San Jose, California, a proposal to construct a public statue to Col. Thomas Fallon, who captured the city for the Americans in the Mexican-American War, was rejected, and a statue to the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl approved instead. Mexican-Americans at a soccer match in Los Angeles in 1998 booed and jeered the playing of the American national anthem before the game. “Hate crimes” against non-whites are front-page national news for weeks, and national leaders descend upon the local community to show their solidarity with the victim. Yet even more brutal massacres of whites, like the rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder of four white men and women by two black criminals in Wichita, Kansas, in 2000, are seldom mentioned in the national news and excite no commentary whatsoever. O. J. Simpson, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt in the murders of his white ex-wife and her friend, is acquitted when black jurors reject incriminating evidence as “racist.”

It is perhaps significant that Shelby Steele wrote that whites today “cannot openly have a racial identity.” If white racial consciousness is forbidden and does not exist, there is certainly a powerful racial subconscious among whites, as evidenced by patterns of school attendance, housing, church membership, marriage, and even voting. The “color blindness” about which conservatives like to chirp does not exist wherever races are free to choose their own associations. Whites, of course, will often avoid explaining or defending their preferences in racial terms. They move to the suburbs because tax rates and crime rates are lower; they send their children to mainly white schools because these schools are better; they attend the churches they do because those are the churches of their parents and their friends. But all such explanations—lower taxes and less crime, better schools, the habits of one’s parents and friends—have obvious racial dimensions.

A recent study by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, the Washington Post reports, shows that today “schools are almost as segregated as they were when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.” [U.S. School Segregation Now at '69 Level By Michael Dobbs, January 18, 2004]  The segregation is due not to legally enforced discrimination but to the voluntary residence and attendance preferences of whites, who simply abandon communities and schools when non-whites arrive. For much the same reason, Christian churches also remain racially exclusive. “Just 8 percent of Christian churches in the United States are multiracial, defined as one ethnic group making up no more than 80 percent of the membership, according to a 2002 study.”

Voting behavior shows the same racial patterns. In 2000, 54 percent of whites voted for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, while only 42 percent voted for Vice President Al Gore, the Democrat. Bush received only 8 percent of the black vote and some 31 percent of Hispanic votes, while Gore won 90 percent of blacks and 67 percent of Hispanics. Nearly 20 percent of Gore’s total vote came from blacks. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since 1968, at the latest.

Moreover, as non-white immigrants occupy more and more of the national territory, “white flight” extends not just from city to suburb and suburb to countryside but from region to region. As University of Michigan demographer William H. Frey and reporter Jonathan Tilove wrote in The New York Times Magazine (August 20, 1995):

For every immigrant who arrives [in large metropolitan areas], a white person leaves. Look collectively at the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Boston metropolitan areas—5 of the top 11 immigration destinations. In the last half of the 80’s, for every 10 immigrants who arrived, 9 residents left for points elsewhere. And most of those leaving were non-Hispanic whites…. The places that whites were leaving for were metro areas like Tampa-St. Petersburg, Seattle, Phoenix, Atlanta and Las Vegas, all of which attract relatively few immigrants. ["Immigrants In, Native Whites Out," not online.]

Whites are leaving entire metropolitan areas and states—whole regions—for white destinations. And new census estimates indicate that this pattern of flight from big immigration destinations has become even more pronounced in the 90’s.

And, in marriages, the overwhelming fact, despite constant acclamation by racial liberals of increases in interracial unions, is that whites continue to cross marry less than any other race, and they do so in negligible numbers. The 2000 Census reports that only 3.5 percent of whites marry non-whites. Given the ending of legal barriers to interracial marriages nearly forty years ago and the immense increase of the nation’s non-white population since that time, this persistent preference of whites for marriage partners of their own race is strong evidence of their enduring racial identity as whites.

The clear existence of a white racial subconscious means that the problem for whites is mainly to bring what it contains into consciousness. They need to learn that race, as much as sex, is part of human nature and the human condition, that it can no more be expelled or denied or excluded than any other important fact or force of nature. Whites need to learn also that racial consciousness is no more a license for repression, exploitation, hatred, and violence than recognition of the reality and importance of sex is a license for rape, seduction, and debauchery. Obviously there are criminal and pathological elements that will use sex and race for criminal and pathological ends, but their existence does nothing to diminish the legitimacy and urgency of what those who demand their recognition for healthy purposes are seeking.

Finally, whites need to form their racial consciousness in conformity not only with what we now know about the scientific reality of race but also with the moral and political traditions of Western Man—White Man. The purpose of white racial consciousness and identity is not simply to serve as a balance against the aggression and domination of other races but also to preserve, protect, and help revitalize the legacy of the civilization that our own ancestors created and handed down to us, for its own sake, because it is ours, and because, by the standards of the values and ideals we as a race and a civilization have articulated, it is better. After generations of denial and distortion, what we have permitted to be expelled and repressed now returns, and we now know again, as our ancestors once knew also, that in the absence of the race that created that legacy, it would never have existed at all. If the legacy is to pass on to our own descendants, it will be because we as white men and women understood who we were, what it was we created, how it came to exist, and how it will endure. The essays collected here are a first step toward that goal.

Sam Francis, who died February 15, 2005, was published on VDARE.com for the last five years of his life.

Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent?

Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent?

by Bill Sardi

Recently by Bill Sardi: Who Is Left Holding the Bag on US Debt?

The government wants Americans to believe the greatest economic collapse in history was the result of ineptness and mistakes yet still have confidence in their financial institutions.

Should American bankers be let off the hook because they self-declare, before an investigational panel, that the failure of their newly invented risk swaps and other highly leveraged investment schemes was simply due to “mistakes”? Not malfeasance – just every-day mistakes? Bankers just fell asleep at the helm at a critical juncture in American history. Is that what we are being led to believe?

Oh well, it’s just 18 million American homes that now lay empty in the wake of unprecedented foreclosures, and the bankers have collected obscene bonuses for reckless lending of their depositors’ money. It’s like the captain and crew of a ship saying, not to worry, twenty-percent of the passengers were lost overboard, but this was due to unavoidable mistakes, and then being rewarded with bonuses when they reach port.

Are Americans to believe that the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to create a false bubble in the economy, at the same time the Securities Exchange Commission allowed investment banks risky reserve ratios and exerted lax control over investment tycoons like Bernie Madoff, and in lock step, the credit rating agencies (Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s) handed out sterling A+ credit ratings on risky mortgage-backed securities, while the US Treasury Department stood by and did nothing?

Shall Americans conclude the world’s largest economy is beyond the management skills and regulation of virtually every financial arm of government and the private sector? If so, widespread incompetence would suggest Americans had better come up with some institution or instrument of their own invention to protect their money.

Whatever or whomever did bring down the American economy, it appears to be an orchestrated effort. If one arm of the financial industry had objected or performed their job responsibly, the whole economic collapse could have been averted. The credit rating agencies alone could have put an abrupt halt to what amounts to a financial collapse of western civilization.

Lenses into the future: a planned default?

Americans cannot see the economy as the elites do. The elites have lenses into the future. They have access to information that foretells the future of our economy. They can see a better picture of when mounting debt will rise beyond the ability to repay.

They certainly can see pension funds, private and public, are under-funded and there is no way, with Baby Boomers now entering their retirement years, these obligations can be met. Medicare expenses are totally out of control with enrollees able to rack up bills in the tens of thousands of dollars beyond what they ever paid into the system.

At some point, seeing no way out, maybe a decision was made to default on our debts. There are rumblings that the world economy is being intentionally brought to its knees in order to usher in a one-world currency.

There are other hints that the US is intentionally tanking its economy.

  • Normally the US Patent & Trademark Office could be seen as a pathway to jump-start the economy. Some 6300 patent examiners hold the future fate of the American economy in their hands. But the patent office is backlogged. It embarrassingly has 6 years of patent applications, what amounts to over 1 million filings, waiting to be evaluated. Over $700 million of fees have been siphoned off by Congress to pay for other extraneous government projects, slowing the patent approval process to an agonizingly pace. About 7 of every 10 applicants were granted a patent in the past. But today, less than half are approved.
  • In the past decade there also appeared to be an effort to drive States into debt. Colorado, a State that had a mandated spending limit, was belittled for stifling its economy. Lies were told that Colorado was so bogged down with this limitation that it repealed its spending limit bill. That was far from the truth.
  • Another business stifling practice has been to limit the amount of large funds actually available to the economy in what is called M3 money supply. M1 is the amount of currency and traveler’s checks in circulation outside banks, along with demand deposits and other checkable deposits. M2 is M1 plus savings deposits, such as money market accounts. M3 is M2 plus large time-restricted deposits, institutional money-market funds and other large liquid assets. M3 is the best official measure of the total supply of money.

As of March 23, 2006, the M3 money supply is no longer published by the US central bank. So Americans can’t get a full view of what government is doing with the total money supply. The M3 is now estimated by two websites – ShadowStats.com and NowAndTheFuture.com. A severe contraction in the M3 money supply began to be reported in August of 2008. It appears there has been a sudden downturn in M3 funds, which could choke the economy at a critical time.

“Total money”
M3 plus credit, recent time
http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

By plan or mistake?

It would be difficult for the American public to even contemplate the idea that their government may be intentionally tanking the economy. So we are left with the commonly-heard claim that people in government are just incompetent, there is no conspiracy of any kind. Regardless, heads should roll, and we still have the same derelict captains (Bernanke, Geithner) at the helm.

Whatever is planned for the future US economy, there certainly must be contingency plans in place to devalue the dollar, issue new currency, declare banking holidays, reappraise the value of real estate to true market value (~ 30% drop), sell off government-held real estate assets to hedge funds, confiscate guns, invoke marshal law, etc. If these events occur, they won’t be without forethought. Call it conspiracy if you will.

On November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt stated, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the United States since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

Few Americans recognize the merger of state and corporate powers, with the news media also subservient to those in power. How gullible the public has been over recent decades to not see how government and business have conspired to raise the price of goods.

The oil embargo of the 1970s

I can recall the gasoline crisis/OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s. I was traveling around the US on business at the time and I noticed that shortages of gasoline were not nationwide but were actually being staged in different regions. In Seattle there was no shortage of gasoline, but there were long lines at gas stations in Los Angeles. There was no scarcity of gasoline in Atlanta, but later there were long lines at gas pumps throughout Georgia. TV screens around the nation made it falsely appear the shortage was nationwide.

The 1970s gasoline crisis was a concerted effort between government, oil producers and the news media to fool Americans into thinking there was a pervasive shortage of gasoline despite the fact OPEC, the oil-producing cartel, was founded because of an over-abundance of oil.

I recall reading an article in Fortune Magazine in 1963 how oil companies longed to find a way to raise the price of gasoline to European levels. Pre-OPEC, oil was sold at competing prices. That couldn’t be tolerated. A spot-price had to be introduced. Then one country couldn’t undersell another and prices would “stabilize.” The OPEC cartel eliminated competition, except for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in recent times. Of course, Chavez is demonized. We do not have free markets, we have controlled markets based upon contrived events.

Graph of oil prices from 1861–2007, showing a sharp increase in 1973, and again during the 1979 energy crisis. The orange line is adjusted for inflation.

Examine this map of failed banks in 2008–2009. There are over 2000 failed banks the FDIC indicates it needs to dissolve. Notice how evenly the bank failures are spread geographically across the US. The geographical locus of home foreclosures is centered in California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. But bank closures appear to be more evenly spread, as if to create public awareness (and fear) in every geographic region that banks are in trouble. This is eerily similar to the geographically revolving gasoline shortages in the 1970s.

Tax cut or payoff to oil companies?

Another example of complicity between government and industry is the most recent run up in gasoline prices which began early in the past decade. The news media failed to note that when GW Bush passed his first tax cut in 2001, early in his first term in office, it was rapidly followed by an increase in gasoline prices at the pump. Had President Bush cut taxes in order to put money into consumers’ hands so they could then pay ghastly high gasoline bills? The tax cut appears to have been a hand-in-hand arrangement between oil producers and the federal government. Gasoline prices rose till the public began curtailing their driving. The oil companies had now determined the top price they could get for their refined oil without collapsing demand.

There is nothing wrong with companies determining the top price consumers will pay for their goods, but there is something wrong when government secretly schemes with oil companies to create false market value, as they have also done in real estate.

Looking back in recent American history, there were also shortages of coffee and bananas in the 1970s and 80s, all staged events blamed on storms in South America that ruined crops. In those days, Americans didn’t have easy access to weather maps and information via the internet. These shortages were prolonged and prices rose until usage declined. Then the barons who ruled the coffee and banana industries had found the top price they could sell their products at without dampening demand. Suddenly, the shortages disappeared. The public never imagined these shortages were all artificially created.

Just as the price of oil, bananas and coffee were covertly engineered by a hidden alliance between government, industry and news outlets, is currency being gamed in the same fashion today? If so, current economic events are not by mistake.

Since President Roosevelt banned citizens from owning gold in 1933, the people were left holding increasingly worthless pieces of paper.

Americans can’t imagine how monetary policy has eroded their purchasing power. The US was officially taken off the gold standard in 1971. Issuance of silver certificates ceased in 1964. Had the US dollar continued to be backed by gold, the rise in the value of gold would have offset recent increases in gasoline prices at the pump, a fact Ron Paul has brought to the public’s attention.

For example, a portion of the rise in oil prices in recent years is due to erosion in the value of the dollar. Had the dollar remained strong the relative price of a barrel of oil would only have been around $65 in 2007-2008. If you compare the spot price of oil to gold, there has been almost no increase. Imagine what a gold-backed currency would do for America? Again, government (the Federal Reserve) has now admitted that it has arranged gold swaps with foreign banks in a prearranged way to suppress the value of gold.

Is inflation inevitable? Or is it planned? Will the American public ever imagine the value of their money has long been manipulated just as the price of coffee, bananas, gasoline and gold have been engineered in an unholy alliance between government and bankers and corporate enterprise? Will the American public ever realize their government is working against them, plunder their wealth, in a growing fascist alliance with American corporations? The enemy is not the underpants airplane bomber as we are falsely being led to believe. The enemy is not a towelhead in Afghanistan. The enemy is not China. As Pogo once said, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”

January 19, 2010

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.

Copyright © 2010 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California. This article has been written exclusively for http://www.LewRockwell.com and other parties who wish to refer to it should link rather than post at other URLs.

Every aspect of why this nation is dying

Tomgram: Greg Grandin, Does the Tea Party Run on Race?

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Today’s post is by Greg Grandin, whose fascinating history, Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City, on a cultural traffic accident in the jungles of Amazonia was a Pulitzer Prize finalist.  You can buy it at Amazon.com by clicking on the cover image embedded in his piece below, the link in TomDispatch Associate Editor Andy Kroll’s introduction, or in Grandin’s bio.  TomDispatch will then get a small cut of the proceeds, which represents a painless, cost-free way of supporting this site.  And here's a reminder: once you’ve clicked to Amazon via any TomDispatch book link, you can buy anything there, book or not, and we get the same small cut.  So if you shop at Amazon regularly, remember to do it through TomDispatch!  In addition, I know that some of you have been listening regularly to Timothy MacBain’s splendid TomCast audio interviews with TD authors.  You can catch the most recent of them, including later today a conversation with Grandin, by clicking here or by downloading it to your iPod here. They are a genuine addition to this site.  MacBain is, at present, my intern, but soon his stint will be over and I hope to hire him to continue producing his TomCasts.  Unfortunately, when I decide to hang on to young journalists like Kroll or MacBain, it costs money.  So here’s another reminder: your contributions to TomDispatch really do make a difference.  They are the only way I can regularly maintain and upgrade a site where quality matters (at least to me).  Tom]

By the time I arrived at Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington, D.C., on a beautiful April afternoon, the stars of the Tax Revolt Rally — Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann topping the day’s billing, followed by lesser luminaries from the conservative fringes — had already come and gone. I wandered among the protesters, reading signs typical of any Tea Party get-together. “Save a Seal, Club a Liberal” read one. Another, of course: “Don’t Tread on Me.” Yet another: “Tax My House, Tax My Gas, And When I Die, You Tax My Ass!” For some minutes, I chatted with a man dressed as Captain America, who at one point reached into his pocket and handed me personal photos of his dog to admire. All of this felt about right.

Then the rapping began. David Saucedo, aka “Polatik,” a Hispanic hip-hop artist and rising star on the Tea Party scene, took to the stage and launched into “That’s A Tea Party,” a number set over spare keyboards and the tapping of a hi-hat. The chorus went something like this:

Fiscally responsible, that’s a Tea Party / Promotes free market, that’s a Tea Party / Limited government’s the only solution / Our only foundation should be our Constitution.

The crowd stood there, motionless, indifferent. At most, a few pairs of shoulders gently swayed. Generally, the assembled crew stared at Saucedo as if he had just descended from a spaceship sent from a distant planet, and soon he was done — not a moment too soon.

That a Tea Party crowd wouldn’t care much for a hip-hop act — its message of free markets, liberty, and reclaiming America notwithstanding — isn’t exactly surprising. After all, this burgeoning grassroots group, surveys show, is staggeringly white, older, and fairly affluent — not quite your typical hip-hop demographic. The disconnect that afternoon in Freedom Plaza could also be seen as symptomatic of a group that tends to view the world through a racial lens: according to a recent study from the University of Washington, 73% of Tea Party supporters concurred with the statement: “If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” Only one-third of Americans who reject Tea Party positions agree. In general, those who back the Tea Party are more likely to hold negative opinions of both blacks and Latinos — a claim that movement regulars in all-white crowds vehemently contest. In fact, when it comes to race, it goes a lot deeper than that.  As Greg Grandin, TomDispatch regular and author of the Pulitzer Prize finalist Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City (just published in paperback), shows us, race is a through-line that connects the unrest of our nation’s past to today’s “patriots.” Andy

Glenn Beck, America’s Historian Laureate
The Tea Party’s Guide to American Exceptionalism (It Is All About Race)

By Greg Grandin

Americans, it’s been said, learn geography when they go to war.  Now, it seems, many get their history when they go to a Tea Party rally or tune in to Glenn Beck.

History is a “battlefield of ideas,” as Beck recently put it, while looking professorial in front of a blackboard filled with his trademark circled names connected by multidirectional arrows, his hands covered with chalk dust.  In this struggle, movement historians like Beck go all in, advancing a comprehensive interpretation of American history meant to provide analytical clarity to believers and potential converts alike.  As paranoid as it may be, this history is neither radical nor revisionist, since the Tea Party activists and their fellow travelers pluck at some of the major chords of American nationalism.

It’s easy to dismiss the iconography of the movement: the wigs and knee breeches, the founding-father fetishism, the coiled snakes, and, yes, the tea bags.  It’s no less easy to laugh at recent historical howlers like the claims of Dick Armey, who heads FreedomWorks, a corporate Tea Party front, that Jamestown was settled by “socialists” or the Texas School Board’s airbrushing of Deist Thomas Jefferson from its history textbooks.  It’s fun to ridicule Beck, as Jon Stewart recently did, when he goes all “Da Vinci Code,” and starts connecting Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, and ACORN in order to explain 2008’s economic collapse.

But historical analysis is about making connections, and there is, in fact, coherence to the Tea Party version of history, which allows conservative cadres not just to interpret the world but to act in it.  And yes, it is all about race.

The 1040 Archipelago

At the heart of Tea Party history is the argument that “progressivism is fascism is communism.”  Conceptually, such a claim helps frame what many call “American exceptionalism,” a belief that the exclusive role of government is to protect individual rights — to speech, to assembly, to carry guns, and, of course, to own property — and not to deliver social rights like health care, education, or welfare.

At Tea Party rallies and on right-wing blogs, it’s common to hear that, since the time of President Woodrow Wilson, progressives have been waging a “hundred-year-long war” on America’s unique values.  This bit of wisdom comes directly from Beck, who has become something like the historian laureate of American exceptionalism, devoting many on-air hours to why progressivism is a threat equal to Nazism and Stalinism.

Progressives, he typically says, “started a hundred-year time bomb.  They planted it in the early 1900s.”  Beck has compared himself to “Israeli Nazi hunters,” promising, with language more easily associated with the Nazis than those who pursued them, to track down the progressive “vampires” who are “sucking the blood out of the republic.”

As Michael Lind pointed out in a recent essay at Salon.com, behind such Sturm-und-Drang language lurks a small group of relatively obscure historians, teaching in peaceful, leafy liberal arts colleges, many of them influenced by the late University of Chicago political theorist Leo Strauss.  They argue that the early twentieth-century progressive movement betrayed the very idea of universal natural rights invested in the individual, embracing instead a relativist “cult of the state.” As a result, a quest for “social justice” was elevated above the defense of “liberty” — a path which led straight to the gulag and the 1040 short form.  From there, it was an easy leap to History’s terminus: the Obamacare Death Panels.

These historians and their popular interpreters, especially Beck and Jonah Goldberg, the author of Liberal Fascism, naturally ignore the real threats to individualism that the turn-of-the-twentieth-century progressive movement was responding to — namely a massive concentration of corporate political and economic power and Gilded Era “wage slavery.” Instead, they present history as a zero-sum, all-or-nothing “battlefield of ideas,” with the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill on one side, and Jefferson Davis, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, and Obama on the other.  The individual versus the state.  Freedom versus slavery.

In such an epic view of American history, there is, however, a fly in the ointment or, more accurately, a Confederate in the conceptual attic — and that’s the inability of the Tea Party and affiliated right-wing movements to whistle past Dixie.

Is the Tea Party Racist?

Of course it is.  Polls confirm that Tea Party militants entertain deep-seated racial resentment.  In April, a New York Times/CBS News study revealed that most tea partiers tend to be over 45, white, male, affluent, and educated and think that “too much has been made of the problems facing black people.”  A high percentage of them also believe that Obama favors blacks over whites.

But to say the movement is racist based only on the spit and vitriol hurled at African-American congressmen and civil rights activists like Emanuel Cleaver, or on the placards depicting Obama as a monkey or a pimp, allows for rebuttal.  The minute the reality of the spitting incident is challenged and “Don’t Tread on Me” is substituted for “Go Back to Kenya,” voilà, the movement is instantly as wholesome as apple pie.

A debate over a recent University of Washington poll helps us understand why the movement is racist no matter which slogans and symbols it chooses to use.  The poll found that “support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment.”  When right-wingers offered the criticism that the pollsters’ methodology conflated racism with support for small-government ideology, they reexamined their data and found themselves in agreement (of a sort) with their critics.  “Ideology,” they wrote in a follow up, was indeed an important factor, for “as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they’re racially resentful.”  In other words, it wasn’t membership in the Tea Party movement per se that predicted racism, but conservatism itself (though the Tea Party does have a higher percentage of members who displayed racism than conservatism in general).

This should surprise no one.  After all, the Founding Fathers cut Thomas Jefferson’s description of slavery as an “execrable commerce” and an “assemblage of horrors” from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, and race has been crucially embedded in the conception of the patriot ideal of the sovereign individual ever since.  As Harvard historian Jill Lepore has written about the original Boston Tea Party, the colonists had a choice: “either abolish slavery… [or] resist parliamentary rule.  It could not do both.”  Many in Virginia, of course, didn’t want to do both.  Instead, they simply defined the defense of slavery as part of American liberty.

While Jefferson, himself a slaveholder, failed in his effort to extend the notion of individual inalienable rights to blacks, he was successful in setting two rhetorical precedents that would continue to influence American political culture.  First, he used chattel slavery as a metaphor for British tyranny, equating the oppression of Africans with the oppression of the white colonists.  At the same time, he stoked racial fears to incite rebellion: King George III, he wrote, was “exciting” blacks to “rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by murdering” whites.  One could draw a straight line from these words to George H.W. Bush’s infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad.

From then on, the ideal of the assertion and protection of individual rights was regularly bound up with racial demonology.  Anglo genocidal campaigns against and land theft from Native Americans, for instance, contributed to the influential theories concerning property of John Locke, who before Beck arrived on the scene, was considered “America’s philosopher,” the man most associated with the notion of God-given inalienable individual rights and restricted government.

Once such theories were formulated, they were then used to further justify dispossession, contributing, as law professor Howard Berman put it, to the “Americanization of the law of real property.”  The nineteenth century was known for a frenzied speculative capitalism that generated staggering inequality.  At the same time, eliminationist wars that drove Indian removal, the illegal invasion of Mexico by the United States in 1846, and the ongoing subjugation of African Americans helped stabilize the Daniel Boone-like image of a disciplined, propertied, white male self — and did so by contrasting it with racial enemies who were imagined to be unbridled (like the speculative capitalists), but also abject and property-less.

The Civil War cemented the metaphor whereby the free individual was defined by (and endangered by) his opposite, the slave, and has been used ever since to frame conflicts that often, on the surface at least, don’t seem to be about race at all.  It’s a point nicely illustrated recently by Dale Robertson, a prominent Tea Party organizer, who carried a sign at a rally that read: “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.”  Beck, for his part, has identified ACORN, the Service Employees International Union or SEIU, the census, and the healthcare bill, among other threats, as laying the foundation for a “modern-day slave state” in which, of course, his overwhelmingly white following could be reduced to the status of slaves.  As to progressives, he has said that, “back in Samuel Adams’ day, they used to call them tyrants. A little later I think they were also called slave owners, people who encourage you to become more dependent on them.”

Sometimes, though, it really is just about race: “Obama’s Plan,” announced one placard at a Wisconsin Tea Party gathering, would lead to “White Slavery.”

Lock-And-Load Populism

When Tea Partiers say “Obama is trying to turn us into something we are not,” as one did recently on cable TV, they are not wrong.  It’s an honest statement, acknowledging that attempts to implement any government policies to help the poor would signal an assault on American exceptionalism, defined by Beck and likeminded others as extreme individualism.

The issue is not really the specific content of any particular policy.  As any number of frustrated observers can testify, it is no use pointing out that, say, the healthcare legislation that passed is fundamentally conservative and similar to past Republican healthcare plans, or that Obama has actually lowered taxes for most Americans, or that he gets an F rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  The issue is the idea of public policy itself, which, for many on the right, violates an ideal of absolute individual rights.

In other words, any version of progressive taxation, policy, and regulation, no matter how mild, or for that matter, of social “justice” and the “common good” — qualities the Texas School Board recently deleted from its textbook definition of “good citizenship” — are not simply codes for race.  They are race.  To put it another way, individual supremacy has been, historically speaking, white supremacy.

This helps explain why it is impossible for the anti-Obama backlash to restrain its Tourette-like references to the Civil War to frame its fight, or its rhetorical spasms invoking secession and nullification, or its urge to carry Confederate flags as well as signs equating taxpayers with slaves.  That America’s first Black president’s first major social legislation was health care — something so intimately, even invasively about the body, the place where the social relations of race are physically inscribed (and recorded in differential mortality rates) — pushed the world-turned-upside-down carnival on display every night on Fox News, where the privileged fancy themselves powerless, another step toward the absurd.

The deepest contradiction may, however, lie in this: the teabaggers who reject any move by Big Government when it comes to social policy at home remain devoted, as Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, to the Biggest Budget-Busting Government of All, the “military-industrial-ideological complex” and its all-powerful commander-in-chief executive (and surprising numbers of them are also dependent on that complex’s give-away welfare state when it comes to their livelihoods).

As James Bovard, a consistent libertarian, has observed, “many ‘tea party’ activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding.”  For all the signs asking “Who is John Galt?,” the movement has openly embraced Arizona’s new “show-me-your-papers” immigration law and mutters not one complaint over the fact that America is “the most incarcerated society on earth,” something Robert Perkinson detailed in Texas Tough, his book on the Lone Star roots of the U.S. penitentiary system.  The skin color of those being tortured, rounded up, and jailed obviously has something to do with the selective libertarianism of much of the conservative movement. But this passion for pain and punishment is also an admission that the crisis-prone ideal of absolute individualism, forged in racial violence, would be unsustainable without further state violence.

Behind the lock-and-load populism and the kitsch calls to “rearm for revolution” is a recognition that the right’s agenda of corporate deregulation — the effects of which are evident in exploding coal mines in West Virginia and apocalyptic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico — can only be achieved through ceaseless mobilization against enemies domestic and foreign.

Here’s an example: “I know that the safety and health of coal miners is my most important job,” said Don Blankenship at a corporate-funded Friends of America rally held in West Virginia last Labor Day, where speakers such as Ted Nugent and Sean Hannity spoke out against tyrants, regulation, “Obama and his cronies,” taxes, cap-and-trade legislation, unnamed “cockroaches,” China, green technology, and, naturally, gun control.  Blankenship just happens to be the CEO of Massey Energy, owner of the Upper Big Branch mine where 29 workers recently lost their lives.

He is also famous for waving the banner of individual rights even as he presides over a company that any totalitarian state worth its salt would envy, one that intimidates “its workers into a type of lock-step compliance that most often takes the form of silence,” including threats to fire workers who take time off to attend the funerals of the dead miners.  Wrapping himself in the American flag — literally, wearing a stars-and-strips shirt and baseball cap — Blankenship told that Labor Day crowd that he didn’t “need Washington politicians to tell” him about mine safety.  Seven months later, 29 miners are dead.

The End of American Exceptionalism

And here’s the irony, or one of them anyway: in the process of defining American exceptionalism as little more than a pitchfork loyalty to individual rights, Beck and other right-wingers are themselves becoming the destroyers of what was exceptional, governmentally speaking, about the United States.  Like John Locke’s celebration of inalienable rights, Founding Father James Madison’s distrust of the masses became a distinctive feature of American political culture.  Madison valued individual rights, but in the tripartite American system of government he worked hard to help fashion, a bulwark meant to contain the passions he knew they generated.  “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,” he wrote in 1787, and in the centuries that followed, American politicians would consistently define their unique democracy against the populist and revolutionary excesses of other countries.

Today, though, not just Fox News Jacobins like Beck and Hannity but nearly the entire leadership of the Republican Party are fanning those flames.  Newt Gingrich hopes the Tea Party will become the “militant wing of the Republican Party,” looking to hitch his political fortunes to a movement now regularly calling for a “second bloody revolution.”  It is hard to think of another time in American history when one half of the political establishment has so wholly embraced insurrectionary populism as an electoral strategy.

Considering the right’s success at mimicking the organizing tactics of the left, it would be tempting to see recent calls for rebellion and violence as signs that the conservative movement is entering its Weathermen phase — the moment in the 1960s and 1970s when some left-wing activists succumbed to revolutionary fantasies, contributing to the New Left’s crackup.   Except that violence did not really come all that easy to the American leftists of that moment.  There was endless theorizing and agonizing, Leninist justifying and Dostoevskian moralizing, from which the left, considering the ongoing finger-pointing and mea culpas, still hasn’t recovered.

In contrast, conservative entitlement to the threat of violence is so baked into American history that, in moments like this, it seems to be taken for granted.  The Tea Party crowd, along with its militia, NRA, and Oath Keeper friends, would just as easily threaten to overthrow the federal government — or waterboard Nancy Pelosi — as go golfing.

On the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building, which left 168 people dead and 600 wounded, gun-rights militants held a rally at the capital mall in Washington, along with a smaller, heavily armed one across the Potomac, where speaker after speaker threatened revolution and invoked the federal siege of Waco to justify the Oklahoma bombing.  This is the kind of militancy Gingrich believes the Republicans can harness and which he tenderly calls a “natural expression” of frustration.

Where all this will lead, who knows?   But you still “don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Greg Grandin is a professor of history at New York University.  His most recent book, Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City, just published in paperback, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award, and was picked by the New York Times, the New Yorker, and NPR for their “best of” lists.   A new edition of his previous book, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, will be published later this year.

Copyright 2010 Greg Grandin

Locust:

I love this article, it has every aspect of why this nation is dying, the liberal progressive suicidal ideology that they believe. They hate this nation, and they will destroy this nation. I guarantee they will get their wish, and when this nation collapses, as every multicultural empire always has, what do they think is going to happen? Do they think we will run to the very people who caused our collapse with arms wide open, and embrace our darker skinned neighbors as brothers in mutual understands and fraternal love?  The oligarchs and their pets have engineered this disaster, try to imagine, if you will, the coming events: A government ruled by the minority through tyranny built on the hatred of the builders of the nation, government control from cradle to grave of nearly all aspects of life, oppressive crushing taxation combined with increased cost of living and stagnate wages. the formation of anti-White leagues, more and more Latinos bent on the creation of Aztlan, and Blacks pushing for more control in “black run America,” while anti-white America goes main stream. Most of these have already occurred or are in the process of becoming reality.

As with all mini despots, and tyrants, these anti-white movements have miscalculated, through their insatiable greed they have pushed to far, they have killed the golden goose. With debt mountains as far as they eye can see, with ethnic tension building daily, and local communities struggling to maintain services. This economy is finished, in short order the worlds largest economy will collapse, taking with it our civility and tolerance.  Think Katrina, on a national level, but with no free ways to safety. What will a white population, which is armed to the teeth, who has been oppressed by its own government for decades, who have suffered under the weight of a growing cancerous collective of parasites who showed no remorse, not even the smallest deviation from our national collapse by these parasites, do? Who will they blame? What will be done to the government and its pets?  Think long and hard, if the American Economy were to collapse in the very near future, what will happen? We don’t have a manufacturing sector to bounce back on, we don’t have a frugal population with which to reinvest with, our ethnic homogeneous has long since passed, and our moral religious core no longer exists. The nation has been fragmented, politically, socially, economically, linguistically, ethnically, every which way you could possibly fragment a nation, we have done it. Combined with terrorism, and trigger happy police, the pot is about to burst.

Hey white boy, give us your money!

Hey white boy, give us your money!

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/

That’s what seven “young men” said to a 72 year old white man as they pummeled him and demanded money. It happened in Maryland, and, naturally, there’s no talk of hate crime charges, since the criminals are black, and the victim is white, and therefore has no rights.

No, the paper doesn’t say the attackers are black, but it’s obvious. Who else would call an old white man “white boy”? And gangs of thugs attacking a lone individual is pretty much a Negro modus operandi.

An elderly man was surrounded by seven young men who punched him and demanded money as he left a Glen Burnie barber shop.

Suzanne Collins reports police arrested all of them as they ran toward a nearby light rail station.

At the Headquarters Barber Shop in Glen Burnie, Tommy and Earl are still shaken. Their 72-year-old customer was attacked in the parking lot by seven young men as he left with a new haircut Tuesday afternoon.

“They were all standing there and said, `Hey, white boy, give us your money.’ He’s 72,” said barber Earl Barnes.

“I yelled for Earl. I said, `Earl, they’re hitting Jim!’” said Thomas Carper. “I was scared. I called 911.”

The barbers say the same seven young men came into the shop several times asking about haircuts just before. After the assault, police chased them to the light rail station. Everyone was arrested.

“The juveniles range in age from 15 to 17. In this case, there were two 20-year-olds. In total, seven subjects were involved,” said Justin Mulcahey, Anne Arundel County Police.

I’ll bet this white teacher learned her lesson

How are your students in film class supposed to make a movie about the Ku Klux Klan without somebody wearing KKK robes? Beats me. But now a teacher with six years experience and an unblemished record may be getting fired for exactly that:

A North Georgia teacher is on administrative leave and could lose her job after she allowed four students to don mock Ku Klux Klan outfits for a final project in a high school class Thursday, administrators said.

The sight of people in Klan-like outfits upset some black students at the school and led at least one parent to complain.

Catherine Ariemma, who teaches the advanced placement course combining U.S. history with film education, could face punishment ranging from suspension to termination, Lumpkin County School Superintendent Dewey Moye said Monday. Ariemma has spent nearly six years teaching in the rural county about 75 miles north of Atlanta.

She told The Associated Press Monday that students were covering an important and sensitive topic – but one that she might handle differently in the future.

“It was poor judgment on my part in allowing them to film at school,” Ariemma said. “… That was a hard lesson learned.”

The incident happened at Lumpkin County High School. Ariemma said her students spend the year viewing films and later create their own films to watch in class. She said the students brainstorm and pick topics to cover. This particular class decided to trace the history of racism in America.

Well, Miss Ariemma, here’s an idea for next year’s project (assuming you still have a job). How about having your kids make a film about the hatred of white people by non-whites in America? A hatred that runs so deep that a white teacher can get fired because her students made a film denouncing racism.

Me and the GOP by Eric Paulson

Me and the GOP

Racially aware European Americans generally hold one of three positions regarding partisan politics:

Some see the Republican Party as an implicitly White party that could be accessed and guided toward positions explicitly favoring European Americans. Persons holding this position point to David Duke who ran and won as a Republican in Louisiana, and Derek Black who was recently elected to a party post in Florida.

Others see the Republican Party as hopelessly corrupted by neo-conservatism that toxic mix of globalism and Judeo-Christianity. Any partisan political activity is best directed toward building a third party. They point to the American Third Position, a new party that has enlisted support from several men known for their intelligence and integrity, as a likely vehicle.

Finally, many White advocates believe that at present partisan politics is a waste of limited time and resources. There is not yet the critical mass of support, especially publicly committed support, to make running for office practical. Some who hold this position are so alienated that they refuse to spend even a few minutes biennially to vote for the lesser of evils claiming that not voting is a form of protest.

There is evidence and arguments to support all three of the above positions. To further a discussion on this topic I will recount my recent experiences with the North Dakota Republican Party (GOP).

My first direct contact with the ND Republican Party came in February, 2008. Every four years our state holds party caucuses to select convention delegates pledged to presidential candidates. While I am neither a libertarian nor an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul I thought he was the best of a disappointing lot of presidential hopefuls. So I braved below-zero temperatures and icy roads to meet with other Republicans, listen to speeches, and cast a vote for a presidential contender. Rep. Paul did relatively well. He cane in third, and actually won some delegates. Sen. McCain came in fourth in our state caucuses.

To vote in a caucus one needed to supply complete contact information. As a result for the next two years I received a light but steady stream of emails from the state GOP announcing upcoming events and soliciting contributions. Only once did I respond to these missives, that a pithy reply to a particularly muddled editorial in support of neo-conservatism written by the party chairman.

Despite my somewhat frosty feedback to the party in early March I received a notice that my district still had openings for delegates to the state convention. I thought it might be interesting to meet the candidates and see how a political organization operates on the state level. So I applied and was accepted as a delegate.

My agenda for the convention was to speak with the five principle candidates (two for US Senate and three for US House), ascertain their positions on three important issues (immigration, Middle East, and fiscal/monetary policy), and inform them of my own views on these subjects. I managed to speak to four of the five candidates at some length on the above issues.

All the candidates were pleasant, even friendly, but often vague on policy specifics, just what you might expect from politicians looking for delegate votes. If one was seeking a spirited policy discussion he would not get one from these candidates. In fact debate or even discussion of policy issues was a rare occurrence during the convention. One might think that with 1200 political activists in one venue there would be plenty of such conversations. On the other hand if you think back to Poli. Sci. 101 you might remember that American politics is often more about personality than policy and more about image than ideas.

The impressions I did receive on policy positions from the candidates and other delegates were not reassuring. It appeared that at the time (late March 2010) that the GOP was on board with amnesty for illegal aliens. Since then neo-con leaders such as Senators McCain and Graham have found it prudent to put so called comprehensive immigration reform on the back burner. In the future, however, these dogs will not hesitant to betray their European American constituents for political expedience.

Prospects appear even less favorable for a more evenhanded GOP policy towards the Middle East. I found little support for Ron Paul’s less interventionist foreign policy. In fact I heard criticism of the Obama administration for not being sufficiently pro-Israeli (Vice President Biden had recently returned from a rocky road in the Levant). It seemed that the more “Christian” a candidate or delegate was the more likely they were to be a Judeo-Christian Zionist. Honesty, with their talk of a wider war in the Middle East I find these Christian Zionists to be the scariest people on the political spectrum.

As for a sounder fiscal and monetary policy, another issue raised by Rep. Paul during the 2008 campaign, the GOP leadership is quick to give lip service to cutting spending but very hesitant to advocate more fundamental reforms such as regular auditing of the Federal Reserve. I asked Rick Berg, the Republican candidate for our at-large US House seat, specifically about Rep. Paul. I noted the enthusiastic support Dr. Paul has received especially from younger Republicans (Paul had recently won the presidential straw poll at the CPAC conference in Washington). Berg conceded that Ron Paul energizes a core Republican constituency and is an impressive fund raiser, but I could sense the profound reluctance of the GOP establishment candidate to go off script and think outside the box. Whatever his strengthens and weaknesses, and he has both, Rep. Paul is a true maverick. Sen. McCain, the self proclaimed maverick, is more the grumpy opportunist.

During the past year I attended a couple of local Tea Party (TP) events, and I recognized several persons from those events at the convention. I asked them about the Tea Party’s relationship to the GOP. While this is obviously a small sampling it appears the TP is now firmly wedded to the Republican Party. Back in 2009 it seemed possible that the TP would be a radical movement independent of the Republicans, but this has not happened, at least not yet. Although they are having a significant influence on the GOP I predict many Tea Partiers are going to be disappointed with the results of their efforts. It is just too easy for the Republican leadership to give their issues only token support. The elite consensus, supported by both parties, is based on international casino capitalism, big government, and military interventionism all of which preclude serious fiscal and monetary reform. The system will have to go bankrupt before it will change.

So getting back to my original topic: What have I glean from my admittedly brief experience with the GOP? First the Republican organization is permeable, though there are, of course, limits to its inclusion. An activist who chooses the GOP as his medium would need to be politic and use some finesse while still being uncompromising on key issues such as immigration and an America-first foreign policy.

As always the unaffiliated individual is relatively powerless. The best way to get your issues heard is to run your own candidates at conventions and in primaries. This requires one individual to be the point man, a lighting rod. If no individual is available an alternative strategy is to form a group of party activists who would vote as a block at conventions and/or primaries. It would be best to link positions to Republican figures past or present. Such an intra party organization might be called the Buchanan Brigade, Paleo-conservative Caucus, or the Republican Rough Riders.

Up till now I have not mentioned money. It has been pointed out many times that money is the mothers’ milk of politics, the fuel that runs political activism. One needs to open his wallet a bit just to get a seat at the table. That said; remember our cause is starved for funds. I hope no European American would lessen his financial support of an explicitly White organization to support the GOP.

The strategy of infiltrating the Republican Party is not a magic formula for success. As Derek Black is finding out the dominate forces within the party will strongly resist any move toward an explicit White agenda. It will take a stout and sustained effort to have the desired influence on policy. Is the effort worth it? Would resources be better used pursuing another course? The US has had a two-party system almost from the beginning. The last major new party is over 150 years old. These facts show continuity. Yet the parties themselves have changed tremendously over time. One hundred years ago the Democrats’ core constituencies were Southern segregationists and Northern White working men. Many will argue that European Americans will never be able to vote themselves out of the present mess. I agree, but it is difficult to image a realistic scenario for our instauration in which partisan politics does not play at least some role.

Our “movement” is criticized for being long on complains and preaching to the choir, and short on activism. In many regions of this huge country comrades are few and far between. In areas where the Republican Party is the only organization on the right it could be a vehicle for raising issues and networking. This strategy would be a good fit for persons who have excellent interpersonal skills, need to remain within the mainstream, and live in conservative states or districts without other avenues for activism. And remember, this approach does not exclude pursuing other tactics as well.

//

Published: | This entry was posted in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Black Arrogance in Politics

Black Arrogance in Politics

by Jeff Davis

Black politicians show an unshakable support for each other regardless of incompetence, bungling or even criminal behavior. Unfortunately Blacks seem to have little understanding of our Bill of Rights, and some Black politicians want to criminalize dissent.

An article on Boston.com reports that “[Massachusetts] Governor Deval Patrick, even as he decried partisanship in Washington, said today that Republican opposition to President Obama’s agenda has become so obstinate that it ‘is almost at the level of sedition.’ The Democratic governor, who is close to the president, made the comments at a forum at Suffolk Law School’s Rappaport Center, where he was asked by an audience member about partisan battling in Congress. Patrick said that even ‘on my worst day, when I’m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure, he doesn’t face anything like the opposition faced by the president. ‘It seems like child’s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,’ Patrick said.”

Here we have in a nutshell the way that Barack Hussein Obama views himself and the way that most blacks and many Democrats would like him to be viewed. (more…)