Recent News

I am a VDARE.com reader who resides in one of the major swing counties in the United States—Loudoun County, Virginia. Loudoun is the most affluent and one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. About a 45 minute drive to Washington D.C. (which takes about 2 hours or more during rush hour), Loudoun was mostly farmland 25-30 years ago. Today it is a slice of stereotypical suburbia.

New, sprawling housing developments and strip malls have long crowded out the old farms and family businesses that used to mark the area. Where I live you can go from strip malls to century-old farm houses (some still inhabited) on dirt roads in a matter of two minutes. But it is clear that the old farm houses will not last much longer.

During the recent election, I—along with my neighbors—was was bombarded with campaign literature and robo-calls. Every single Romney piece focused solely on economic issues. My wife was particularly targeted with invitations to attend “Women for Romney” events with Ann Romney. Loudoun was clearly a major target for the Republicans.

They didn’t hit that target.

Obama received 81,900 votes (51.52 percent) in Loudoun County to Mitt Romney’s 74,793 votes (47.05 percent). This was unquestionably a stunning defeat in an affluent, mostly white county that had just elected an all-Republican Board of Supervisors.

Republican strategists don’t likely read VDARE.com. But I can give them an insider’s view as to why they are not winning in Loudoun.

Rapid demographic change is certainly part of the reason for Loudoun turning blue. The county voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964. But in 2008 it went Democrat for the first time since Lyndon Johnson.

As of 2011, the demographics of Loudoun are as follows:

• White                 61.6%
• Asian                 14.7%
• Hispanic            12.6%
• Black                   8.0%  

There are no stats for the racial breakdown of the Loudoun 2012 vote, but here is how the presidential vote in Virginia broke down by race:

• Whites           61% for Romney
• Asians           66% for Obama
• Hispanics      64% for Obama
• Blacks           93% for Obama

The GOP did marginally better among Asians and Hispanics in Virginia than they did nationally (25 % and 27% respectively). But the fact remains that only whites will vote for Republicans in great numbers.

And the GOP white share in Virginia was only slightly above the national average (59%). VDARE.com has argued that the GOP (or GAP) must nationalize Southern voting patterns i.e. the GOP gets 73% of the white vote in Texas—and 88% in Mississippi. But in this putatively Southern state, the reverse seems to be happening.

Most of the Loudoun Hispanics are recent arrivals. They are settling in the town of Sterling, which

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) outlined his yet-to-be introduced immigration bill in a Wall Street Journal interview on Monday [Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue, By Matthew Kaminski, January 14, 2013]

Predictably, coming from the WSJ Edit Page, the interview missed no cliché—unpicked fruit, E-Verify beingunreliable, “nativists” hurting the G.O.P., Hispanics being “natural conservatives,” blah blah…But for the purpose of simplicity, I will simply focus on Rubio’s proposed policies.

Before going through the details, I must point out that the actual legislation that Rubio introduces will no doubt be much worse than what he said in the interview. This is the pattern with all “comprehensive immigration reform” bills: the increased enforcement measures always have loopholes, while the amnesty and increases to legal immigration are wider than advertised.

Rubio more or less conceded this by suggesting a “comprehensive package of bills,” rather than an omnibus bill, to prevent those loopholes. But even the smaller amnesties like the DREAM Act have the same problems.

That being said, what Rubio is advertising as his immigration plan is already God-awful.

The “comprehensive” in comprehensive immigration reforms generally means that the bill (or for Rubio, bills) will

1) grant amnesty

2) increase legal immigration, and

3) at least pretend to increase border security and enforcement.

So with no more ado, let me Comprehensively address how Rubio’s plandeals with each aspect.

1. Amnesty:

According to Rubio’s scheme, some form of legal status would be available to virtually all of the illegal aliens. Illegals who committed a “serious crime” would not get amnesty. All others would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They

would have to prove they've been here for an extended

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow calls it “The Curse of Stein”—not that it’s really FAIR President Dan Stein’s fault. Back in the nineties, after Brimelow wrote the National Review cover story that evolved into Alien Nation, Stein asked him why he wanted to get involved in the immigration issue at all—it just gets everyone who writes about it in a lot of trouble.

Subsequent events convinced Brimelow that Stein was right. So he worried about columnist Michelle Malkin when she published her book Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, And Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores. And now we’re all worried about the Daily Caller’s Neil Munro.

Munro [Email him](he's the fellow who dared to interrupt President Obama when he was making one of his innumerable immigration statements last summer) is very sound on immigration, especially by the appalling standards of the Main Stream Media. We've quoted him repeatedly. We were particularly impressed by his report last summer that immigrants were displacing native-born workers and Mitt Romney might actually win working class support by, you know, opposing it. [Analysis: In Obama’s economy, immigrants outpace native-born Americans, October 1, 2012]  Where else have you heard that? (Answer: here and here.)

Jamie Weinstein [email him] is a senior editor at the DC. And he's, well, not so sound.

Munro had a good story Monday:  Obama floats ambitious immigration bill, stops short of simple ‘amnesty’ promise.

But here's how Weinstein "promoted" it in a Daily Caller email bulletin (emphases added):

3.) Here comes immigration -- President Obama is ready to propose an immigrations bill, reports The DC's Neil Munro:

"President Barack Obama will soon push for a massive change to U.S. immigration law that would provide conditional amnesty for roughly 11 million illegal immigrants, import more unskilled and skilled workers, and speed up visas for relatives of new arrivals. The ambitious bill was sketched out in a Jan. 12 leak to the New York Times, and it won immediate plaudits from the main Hispanic lobby group, La Raza. The bill does not include provisions favored by immigration reformers, such as NumbersUSA, that want to spur employment of American workers. Their legislative goals include cutbacks to the flow of low-skilled workers, and a cutback in the number of 'family reunification' green-cards offered to relatives of new immigrants."

Conservatives ought to get out front on this. We need to secure our borders, but also figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants in the country. On this issue, Democrats and Republicans should be able to work together and get a deal done for the good of the country. As for President Obama, if he focused his energy on trying to build consensus on an issue like immigration instead of burning down the house with a nomination like Chuck Hagel, perhaps he would accomplish something good and lasting.

So Weinstein  has taken a story about Obama's push for amnesty, and is promoting it with...his own push for amnesty, including every single neoconservative "surrender on immigration" trope, and throwing in his own irrelevant hostility for Chuck Hagel as an extra. Furthermore, he doesn't even seem to realize that Munro's article contains a discussion of limits on  legal immigration.

For the uninitiated, Weinstein's

Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained ” slave vs. slave-owner vengeance fantasy movie has been widely denounced as you-know-what because of its frequent use of the n-word [VDARE.com note: redacted because of corporate censorware] so I thought it might be paradoxically interesting, but it isn’t. The best way to describe Django Unchained is to put it in the context of D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation [Watch The Birth Of A Nation free on the Internet Archive]

Most Americans encounter Griffith’s film—if they encounter it all—in a class on “Pop Culture and Film” in college, where they learn how insidious this movie was for daring to show a far different take on the Reconstruction Period than that currently disseminated throughout the American education system. (Which, coincidentally, is basically what Django Unchained preaches: white people were already prepared to join the Ku Klux Klan in 1860 and were always prepared to unleash vicious dogs a la Bull Connor in Birmingham on black people to keep them in their place).

Perhaps you’ve read about the NAACP Boycott of The Birth of A Nation or President Woodrow Wilson’s alleged remark—after viewing the film in the White House—that “it is like writing history with lightning.”

What is rarely mentioned is this: The Birth of A Nation was a huge commercial success.

As Seymour Stern wrote in the American Mercury magazine in 1949:

The Birth of a Nation (1915) has grossed to date—it is still running—over $48 million, the largest single gross achieved by any one film since the movies began.

Privately financed at a cost of $110,000 (five times more than the cost of any other film made up to this time), it was directed, produced and exhibited by Griffith in complete independence of the Hollywood film "industry," the first monument to free enterprise in the new medium. By the end of the first two years of its career, it had created 25 million new moviegoers—25 million spectators for whom The Birth of a Nation was the first movie.

[D. W. Griffith and the Movies, March 1949]

In today’s dollars, that $110,000 budget is roughly $2.5 million. Compare that to the $100 million production budget for Django Unchained (not to mention the untold millions spent marketing the film).

In contrast, Django was released on Christmas Day (why?), grossing

[See also Jared Taylor Announces The 2013 AMERICAN RENAISSANCE Conference]

Your Vice President, Joseph Biden, presided over the swearing in of all the Hispanic members of the 113th Congress on January 3. There were 36 of them—a new record—so it was a joyful occasion. Hispanics, said Mr. Biden, are “the center of this nation’s future,” adding that “now the nation . . . understands the Hispanic community must be courted.”[Biden: Latinos 'the center of this nation's future', By Donovan Slack, POLITICO, January 3, 2013]

Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), who has devoted his career to filling the country with Hispanics, noted that “on Election Day, a new America, a diverse 21st century America showed us just how the political and demographic landscape has changed.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who was also there, bragged about how Hispanics are “a force to be reckoned with” on “everything from population growth, to consumer power and political muscle.”

But it was Mr. Biden who said it clearest. “The Hispanic community” he noted, will “take this country to a totally new place.” (Emphasis added).

He’s right about that. But we don’t want to go there.

“Hispanics” are of course an artificial construct of American politics—VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow called them "a strange anti-nation inside the United States" in Alien Nation. The term includes widely varying groups, not all of whom have much in common or even like each other, although the bulk (some 63%) are  Mexican. But here are more of them in America all the time, and what’s in the pipeline is not promising.

No fewer than 53 percent of Hispanic girls get pregnant while they are teenagers—twice the national average. Hispanics are three times more likely than whites and twice as likely as blacks to drop out of high school. If they make it to 12th grade they read and do math, on average, at the level of the average white 8th grader. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in criminal youth gangs.

But these are dry statistics. There are better indicators of the “totally new place” Joe Biden is eager to get to.

It was recently reported that the school district in Salinas, California, has decided to name a new elementary school after Tiburcio Vasquez, a 19th century bandit who stabbed his first policeman at age 14, and was eventually hanged for murder. Naming committee  member Francisco Estrada  says Vasquez was framed by racist whites and that he can be “sort of a hero to us.”

Thanks to Hispanics, we have a new record: the youngest person ever to face the possibility of life in prison. Cristian Fernandez of Florida was 12 when he beat his 2-year-old brother to death. He already had a long record of violence, so prosecutors charged him as an adult in order to put him away for good. The courts are still squabbling over what to do the ironically named Cristian.

Hispanics have novel ideas about government. Ninety-six-percent-Hispanic Maywood, California, had to fire all city employees when it became the first California city ever to lose its insurance. It had an official population of 29,000, but this grew to an estimated 45,000 when it decided to become an official haven for illegal immigrants. City government ran the place into the ground and missed so many payments that the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority stopped its coverage. Maywood fired all its employees, right down to school crossing guards. Neighboring towns took up the slack.

Mexicans take corruption to virtuoso levels. Edward “Eddie” Espinoza, the former mayor of Columbus, New Mexico, went to prison for four years for buying weapons and bullet-proof vests

I see that the blogger Half Sigma says he has given up posting about HBD—“human biodiversity,” otherwise known as H-BD, H-Bd, hbd, h-bd, etc.(He has also moved to a new blog with a rather attractive layout.)There have been some thoughtful reader reactions, notably this one:

I believe that the taboo against HBD will last indefinitely. As the scientific evidence mounts ever more so in favor of HBD, the taboos against speaking about it only seem to grow stronger . . .

Perhaps I had better explain a bit about HBD.

Back in 1999, Steve Sailer launched an invitation-only email discussion group under yahoogroups.com, for the airing of facts and opinions about human biodiversity—which is to say, those (individual) differences between human beings and (statistical) differences between human populations that have biological causes in whole or part.I was an invitee.

Some of the members of the HBD group were heavily-credentialed academics in the human sciences.Others, like me, were literary or journalistic types with an expressed interest in the field.There was a good range of attitudes and opinions in the group, with representatives from, to use the classification I sketched out in Chapter 7 of We Are Doomed , the Religionists, the Culturists, and the Biologians; though Culturists and Religionists tended to drop off from the group—or in the case of View From The Right’s quarrelsome Lawrence Auster, be forced off it—as time went on.Anyway, I learned a lot from our discussions.

(I see the HBD group is still active, though much decayed.I haven’t posted anything myself in ages.Posting activity maxed in the early 2000s, with a peak of 1,638 posts in June of 2002.)

It would be gratifying to report that the reason for the decline in interest is that, whereas 14 years ago HBD was a taboo topic that could only be aired on a private group like that, it is now so commonly accepted that there is no need for such strategies.

It would be gratifying, but wrong—twice wrong, in fact.

For one thing, groups like this have a natural life cycle as members get tired of hearing each other’s voices.Depressingly few of us have a decade-long stream of new and interesting things to say.I count myself a contentedly married man; yet I recall that when we were first wed, my wife and I discussed metaphysics and medieval Chinese poetry, while now our conversation centers on such topics as whether or not I remembered to put out the garbage.

In the second place, HBD is, if anything, even more of a taboo topic now than it was in 1999. I have documented elsewhere the fact that the late 1990s were a brief Golden Age of openness in writing about HBD.Peter Brimelow calls it an “interglacial”—a brief warm period in the middle of an Ice Age.

This is not what we—we, the participants in the HBD discussion group—anticipated.We thought that the publication and widespread discussion of books like The Bell Curve (1994) and The Nurture Assumption (1998) heralded the fact that the entire Ice Age was drawing to a close.

Some of us anticipated even more than that.A brilliant young geneticist on the group was wont to tell us that