Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
If Obama Had A City, It Would Look Like Detroit—But Without An Art Museum, Which Will Have Been Looted By The Rich
If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit. Actually, it already is his—the President has just officially adopted it.
Of Detroit's over 700,000 people, eighty-two percent are black. Obama won the city’s voters by a margin not seen since the fall of Saddam Hussein, taking 98 percent of the votes cast in the 2012 election.
Not coincidentally, the city is also $18.5 billion in long-term debt, forcing the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.
However, in the post-American age, slavish political support for the powers that be has its benefits. The Obama Administration has just delivered the “bacon” City Council member JoAnn Watson notoriously demanded after the election. [Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out, MyFoxDetroit, December 5, 2012]
America’s failed city is getting $300 million in “freed-up” grants from the government and private foundations. The Obama Administration has also appointed a “point person” who will be “on the ground” during this “recovery” process. It has “vowed to bring ‘a lot of passion’ to an aggressive effort to help Detroit recover from its economic crisis”:
White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, addressing the media after a closed-door meeting between White House officials and state and local leaders, said Friday’s meeting was “exceptionally good.” “We just have one goal: To have all of Detroit working together for one Detroit with the Obama administration as a key partner every step along the way to support the vision, strategy and priorities of the people of Detroit,” he said. “We do not think of it as our job to devise the priorities or the strategy for Detroit. Our job is to listen to all sectors of Detroit.”
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan
Adapted from Refugee Problems in Arizona, Social Contract Press, Summer 2013
Most immigration news coming from Arizona concerns the flood of illegal aliens that crosses the border—but illegals are not the only problem the state faces. Arizona receives significant numbers of legal immigrants who are given refugee and asylum status—and these people cause significant social and financial problems out of proportion to their numbers. [Arizona Is a Haven for Refugees, By Jason DeParle, NYT, October 8, 2010]
In statistical terms the refugees that arrive in Arizona are indeed dwarfed in size by the influx of illegals that sneak across the border. FAIRUS and the Pew Hispanic Center estimate that Arizona has about 400,000 illegal aliens residing in the state. About a quarter of a million illegal aliens cross the Arizona border per year en route to other states.
The ceiling on total refugee visas that can be issued per year in the U.S. doesn’t have a hard limit because it varies depending on the whims of the President and Congress. On average about 80,000 a year are given refugee or asylum visas. Arizona receives about 2,000 refugees per year. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Refugees can request asylum visas for family members and close relatives—and many of them have very large extended families. There is no limit to the number of asylum visas that can be granted per year. For the purpose of this article refugees and asylees will be lumped into one category of immigrants called “refugees.”
The refugee program causes many problems—among them is the distortion of the labor market caused by influxes of new workers that displace citizens. Refugees get immediate authorization to work upon arrival and they receive unrestricted Social Security cards. Refugees directly compete with U.S. citizens for all manner of jobs, both skilled and unskilled, high and low wage.
After a few years refugees are typically granted an adjustment of status to legal permanent residency. They then become a permanent part of the U.S. workforce. Refugees are not subject to numerical limits on adjustments of status.
Refugee resettlement programs, however well intended, are costly. State and federal agencies pay benefits to each and every refugee that sets foot on U.S. soil. Unlike other immigrants, refugees are automatically eligible for free housing, welfare, and any other type of government aid that U.S. citizens are entitled to. Officially, the refugee resettlement program costs about $1 billion a year, and of that, $165 million is paid by the states and $332 million is federal. Don Barnett, a researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote that the real cost is about 10 times higher than the official estimate! [Refugee Resettlement | A System Badly in Need of Review, CIS, May 2011]
State spending on refugee resettlement is an unfunded mandate because states have no say over accepting refugees but they are required to provide services for them. The federal government customarily rubber-stamps thousands of refugee applications that are submitted by private organizations.
Decisions over which refugees to accept, and where they will be resettled, are often administered by nongovernmental agencies (NGOs). Many of the NGOs work closely with the United Nations (UN) and are not accountable to the American people or to federal agencies. The UN refers about one-third of the refugee admissions and the United States usually accepts about half of those. California has historically taken the largest share of refugees, but Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular dumping grounds.
Arizona takes more refugees per capita than any other state.
Sometimes the President of the U.S. decrees
I would like to thank Professor Hoppe for inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure and an honor to be before you today.
I have been asked to give you a history of American race relations in a half hour—not an easy thing to do. It would be easier to give you a history in a single word, and that word would be conflict. Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.
Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.
Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict.
American race relations in the Anglo-American sense began in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony on the coast of Virginia. Jamestown is not only where American race relations begin, it is also a fascinating example of the inevitability of racial conflict.
The purpose of the colony was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.
The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.
In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.
There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.
The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance.
I don’t know how much I can assume about this audience’s knowledge of colonial history, but the chief of the neighboring Indians was named Powhatan, and his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, converted to Christianity and married the English planter John Rolfe. That was in 1614, and it inaugurated a period of real harmony. The new head of the colony, George Thorpe, was especially solicitous of the Indians, whom he genuinely tried to help. When English dogs barked at Indians, he had them publicly hanged.
But four years after Pocahontas married John Rolfe, Chief Powhatan died, and his younger brother, Opchanacanough, became chief. Opchanacanough did not have a marriage alliance with the English, and he wanted to drive the invaders out. In 1622, four years after he became chief, Opchanacanough struck. By then there were about 1,200 English in the colony, spread out in several different locations. Every morning, Indians would come to work with the English on farms and in workshops, and on March 22, they were to all rise up and exterminate
Previously by Martin Witkerk: The Philosophy Department Looks at Immigration
I purchased a copy of The Myth of the Muslim Tide on the strength of its title alone. Having seen the photographs of Muslim swarms occupying streets and squares in the capitals of Europe, kneeling and praying in unison toward Mecca, I was genuinely curious as to how anyone would go about trying to persuade readers that the said Muslims were a “myth.”
Author Doug Saunders, [Email him] however, is neither as foolish nor as dishonest as one might gather from his title. He even begins his book with a description of the highly visible changes his own London neighborhood has undergone over the past fifteen years.
His central argument can be stated succinctly: rural peoples tend to be fertile, while cities are population sinks; Muslims moving to the West are usually also moving from rural areas in their homelands to vast urban conglomerations in their host countries, where their fertility tends to fall rapidly. Therefore, estimates of future Muslim population growth based merely on projecting the fertility of first-generation arrivals into the future are wildly exaggerated.
Saunders does a fairly convincing job of demonstrating this thesis. He shows, for example, that Muslim fertility has declined within the Muslim world itself in recent decades in tandem with a marked process of urbanization. Iranian families had an average of nearly seven children in the mid-1980s; by 2010, their fertility had fallen to 1.7, below the rates of France or Great Britain. Turkey has moved away from secularism in recent years, but its fertility rate has also fallen from 6 to 2.15 children per family. North Africa has seen a steep fall in fertility; the worst effected country, Tunisia, is now below the replacement level. Altogether, Saunders writes, “the fertility rate across all Muslim-majority countries has fallen from 4.3 children per family in 1995 to 2.9 in 2010.” Demographers project an overall decline to 2.3 by 2035.
But how about Muslim fertility in the Occident? In the West Germany of 1970, Turkish families had 4.4 children each, while today they have 2.2. Austrian Muslim fertility decline from 3.09 in 1981 to 2.3 in 2001. First-generation Pakistani women immigrants in Great Britain average 3.5 children each, while their daughters average 2.5. Saunders notes a study of the situation in France reporting that Muslim fertility rates are “closely tied to length of residence... the longer immigrant women live in France, the fewer children they have.”
These figures certainly offer a heartening respite to all
As a book reviewer, I just received a copy of a book entitled Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School , along with three pages of summaries discussing its contents. Its authors, Eric Hanushek, [Email] a Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Paul E. Peterson, [Email]also a Hoover Senior Fellow and a Professor of Government at Harvard, and Ludger Woessmann, [Email] a professor of economics at the University of Munich, all bring substantial credentials to their assignment. And the book is published by the prestigious liberal Brookings Institution.
One reviewer on Amazon awards the book the maximum 5 stars, saying,
This book brings a lot of hard data, both international and domestic, to help illustrate several key points.
(a) The actual learning performance of students, as measured on standardized (cross-country) tests, correlates with different countries' economic performance to a striking degree. (Does growth explain schooling or the other way around? Well, the authors also show that learning in an earlier period links to growth in subsequent periods).
(c) With efforts at improvement – and this is by no means all or even primarily about volumes of money – jurisdictions can in fact improve their relative and absolute performance, as shown e.g., by states like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Florida.
Of course, there are plenty of people out there with vested interests or axes to grind. Critics will no doubt cavil at the book's analysis, arguing that things are not all that bad... or that it's all the fault of our ethnic heterogeneity. Approach these excuses for complacency with skepticism. And above all read the book. [Links added to all quotes by VDARE.com]
Confession: I am indeed one of those who cavil
Mississippi is still burning. Not in the way the New York Times would have you believe, stuck in 1962 with lynchings of innocent blacks imminent at any given moment. Instead, while no one was looking, the capital city of Jackson has quietly become America's Harare.
Just as Africa's breadbasket, Rhodesia, had the name of its capital changed from Salisbury to Harare and became Africa's basketcase, Zimbabwe, racial democracy has spoken in 86% black Jackson. Racial socialist Chokwe Lumumba, the Nation of Islam's new favorite elected official, carried a not coincidental 87 percent of the Mayoralty vote on June 4. The almost entirely black electorate embraced his disturbingly familiar slogan of “One City. One Aim. One Destiny.” [Pictured right, Chokwe Lumumba as a young man.]
Symbolically, Jackson International Airport has now been changed to Jackson-Evers International Airport in 2004. But this is only the first step of Jackson's transformation. One can only speculate when Mayor Lumumba will rename the city in honor of Medgar Evers instead of the racist white American Andrew Jackson.
This transformation is taking place because, when all is said and done, “demography is destiny.” Because of remarkably swift white flight from Jackson, there was nothing to prevent the black majority from electing a man who thinks Africans visited North America centuries before Columbus. [Lumumba challenges history regarding Christopher Columbus: Presumptive next mayor says Africans visited Americas before Italian explorer, By Dustin Barnes, Clarion-Ledger, May 24, 2013.]
More importantly, just as revanchist Mexicans trumpet “Aztlan” in the American Southwest, Mayor Lumumba has his own vision of a black ethnostate. He once served as “Vice President” of the black “Republic of New Africa,” which claimed five states of the American South. Lumumba sees Jackson as the focal point of what he calls the “Kush District,” a “solid, non-self governing territory” with a black majority that can serve as a base for a new direction “of self-determination, of self-governance, self-economic development.” [Chokwe Lumumba: New mayor, new era for Jackson, Mississippi ? By Askia Muhammad, The Final Call, August 19, 2013.]
It's not like Mayor Lumumba is concealing his aims. Even his inauguration resembled the revolutionary destruction of a colonial regime instead a mayoral election in a nominally First World country.
On July 1, Chokwe Lumumba, an attorney with a long record of black radical activism, took office as mayor of Jackson. His inauguration took place in the gleaming convention center that sprang up four years ago in the state capital’s mostly deserted downtown.
A crowd of 2,500 packed the hall. The city councilors and other dignitaries, most of them African-American — Jackson, a city of 177,000, is 80 percent black — sat on the dais. The local congressman, Bennie Thompson, officiated. The outgoing mayor,
Opening the Treason Lobby’s Fall Offensive, more than 100 women were arrested on Washington’s Capitol Hill recently as they blocked a street to demand that the House take up the Senate's Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. The action was obviously sanctioned at the highest levels of Lefty feminism: arrestees included the top leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and 9to5, the National Association of Working Women.
The New York Times unguardedly reported that the event was in part a ploy to scare up new members:
Leaders of the liberal women’s organizations said they were embracing immigration in a bid to expand their following among immigrant and Latina women, both fast-growing populations.
Women’s Groups Rally for Immigration Reform, by Julia Preston, New York Times, September 12, 2013
Elite feminists, of course, place the highest importance on remaining part of the liberal coalition, which is fanatically pushing to Elect A New People. But apparently they also see immigrant misogyny as a growth opportunity for their organizations, now that a lot of homegrown sexism has withered away.
The same dynamic can be seen with MADD Mothers Against Drunk Drivers): it turned to diverse outreach to foreigners after successfully educating Americans—and makes no effort at all to confront illegal immigrants, whose lethal drunk driving is a continuing national scandal. After all, MADD has well-paid executives who want to maintain their liberal credentials and their generous paychecks. A solved problem means no need for continued fund-raising (and –spending).
My question as a 1960s feminist: Whatever happened to the women's movement? In the beginning it did useful things, like promoting equality in the workplace and general safety overall. Now it has jumped on the multicultural immigration bandwagon—even though diversity is the enemy of American women’s safety and freedom.
Anyone who looks honestly at the attitude of non-Western men must see that they regard women as lesser beings who don't deserve equal treatment. We Americans simply don’t understand how barbaric much of the world is for women.
The Main Stream Media does reports some overseas horrors—like the Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for promoting education for girls there. But the idea that immigrants bring their cultural baggage with them doesn’t seem to compute in the big editorial offices, so inconvenient evidence like honor killing in America is largely ignored.
The women of NOW can’t be paying much attention to the tsunami of misogynous diversity included in the big Senate package (46 million newbies over 20 years).
The influx of low-skilled Hispanics will continue, despite claims that the Senate formulation will admit more skilled immigrants. Hispanics have a culture of misogyny that isn’t going away, either here or points south.
One rather rude marker: the recent execution-style killing of two Juarez bus drivers alleged
Now, Kenneth Prewitt, whom Bill Clinton appointed head of the Census Bureau in 1998, has published an informative book, What Is Your Race?: The Census and Our Flawed Efforts to Classify Americans, documenting the federal government’s dysfunctional combination of near-monomania over counting by race and lack of coherent thought about the long-run effects of how racial boundaries are drawn.
Despite his half-decade in charge of the Census, Prewitt shares with the average American a certain perplexity over his old department’s fixation upon race and ethnicity:
What perhaps puzzles the reader is why [Census] race statistics are so terribly important that they are announced simultaneously with the population figures mandated for reapportionment. You may also be puzzled that the census form dedicates so much of its space to the race and Hispanic question but has no space for education, health, employment, or marital status questions.
(Not to mention the absence of a citizenship question, which would ask about a simple yes-or-no legal distinction far less murky than race or ethnicity.)
An old-fashioned nice white Protestant liberal, Prewitt, who is now Carnegie professor of public affairs at Columbia University, expresses befuddlement at how a job he apparently assumed would be suitable for a technocratic good government Progressive like himself wound up plunging him into the maelstrom of modern racial politics. Thus his proposals for technical improvements in the Census quite unexpectedly (to him) degenerated into a donnybrook over race, complete with angry charges of, guess what, “racism.”
Prewitt points out that, from the disinterested perspective of promoting the commonweal, the federal government’s racial preoccupation synchronizes poorly with the lack of informed public discussion over the purposes of all this categorizing of people. Instead, the crucial process of drawing official racial and ethnic boundaries tends to be either hijacked by interest groups or is the remnant of bureaucratic inertia and lack of foresight.
Prewitt is particularly concerned about the on-going racial mobilization
Forgotten Victims—American Workers Immiserated By Chinese Immigration In Nineteenth Century California
Open Borders advocates would have us believe there were no victims during past periods of rampant immigration enthusiasm. But immigrants to America were hardly innocents eventually shut out by cruel xenophobes. And the American victims of mass immigration are forgotten--perhaps deliberately in order to justify the current dispossession of the historic American nation.
One particularly enlightening episode: the nineteenth-century Chinese influx into California. Capitalists in search of cheap labor imported thousands of unskilled Chinese for the transcontinental railroad and other projects. Their numbers swelled until by 1870 they constituted one third of the male population of the state. When the railroad was finished, unemployed Chinese competed with desperate Americans from the East for jobs.
Employers did not bring the Chinese to America out of charity. Many arrived in ships as packed and filthy as those used in the African slave trade. Indeed, labor historian Vernon Briggs reports that some of the exact same slave ships were used for both purposes. He writes
“Such treatment reinforced the view of white workers in port cities that the Chinese immigrants were a subservient people.” Nor was this another example of uniquely white perfidy. As with the black slave trade, where African chiefs sold their fellow blacks into slavery, it was Chinese contractors who set and enforced the oppressive labor arrangements.
While the rich and the well connected prospered under this arrangement, American workers suffered. A 1901 article from the American Federation Labor entitled “Some Reasons for Chinese Exclusion” explains why. It states, “In the agricultural districts a species of tramp has been created, known as the blanket man. White agricultural workers seldom find permanent employment; the Chinese are preferred. During the harvest time the white man is forced to wander from ranch to ranch and find employment here and there for short periods of time with the privilege of sleeping in the barns or haystacks….”
“It was a palace in its time.”
That was New York Mets announcer Gary Cohen reminiscing about the Mets’ former home, Shea Stadium (1964-2008).
The Boss (my wife) walked by, heard Cohen, and responded, “You see that? That was Pa’s house.”
We just got back from the house in Trinidad that my late father in-law, “Raka” (1925-2009) built, in part with his own hands.
Indeed, much the same could be said about the two-island Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (“TT” ) itself. And, although it has only 1,328,019 residents, I’m afraid that TT and the U.S. are converging.
Every summer we go to TT, not for vacation, but out of obligation. A few months before Pa died, he made The Boss promise him to take care of the house, and made her executrix of his estate, even though she lived in the U.S. and four of her surviving five sisters still lived in Trinidad.
Whenever we arrive, the house looks abandoned, having received no upkeep over the previous 12 months. One sister-in-law arrives religiously to collect the rent money from the Obeah man from India staying “alone” with up to nine fellow conmen upstairs. We stay in the seedy, underground, downstairs area.
There’s a lot of ruin in a great nation. But how much ruin can a less-than-great nation—let alone one family—overcome?
A highly intelligent auto-didact of Victorian virtue and Indian origin, Pa worked in the oil fields of Venezuela, and was the master mechanic for the local bus service, before setting up his own business as a subcontractor to builders, picking up and delivering loads of gravel. His frail build—5’9,” and 120 lbs. in his last years—could not handle driving a truck in the blazing equatorial sun six days and 60 hours per week. He coped with the pain variously with rum and by ramming his head into the
[See also by Paul Gottfried: Leo Strauss, Immigration, And Israel]
Every now and then, I receive an online “epistola” from the National Humanities Institute, an organization that presents itself as “culturally conservative” and whose apparent lifetime director is Catholic University of America professor , Professor Claes Ryn [Email him]. NHI, which seems to operate on a shoe string, occasionally puts out a journal, Humanitas. Not surprisingly, the latest issue features as a lead article by Ryn that is likewise the subject of Epistola 18: Allan Bloom and Straussian Alienation. [PDF]
Full disclosure: Professor Ryn and I have known each other for more than thirty years and spent considerable time together, socially and professionally. In 2007, we cofounded the Academy of Philosophy and Letters , aiming to fill the Philadelphia Society's former role as a forum for conservative discussion, before it fell under neoconservative control.
But we came to a parting of the ways when Professor Ryn and an assistant, NHI President Joe Baldacchino, demanded the removal from our organization of anyone who had addressed the IQ question or even been present at conferences in which this delicate subject was broached. My admission that I did indeed believe that individuals and ethnic groups have differing cognitive abilities resulted in Ryn’s unexpected insistence that I myself should leave.
I took along those who opposed the censorship and set up the H.L. Mencken Club. From what I can determine, our side has many more members than APL—and more open discussion. (HLMC has its sixth annual conference in Baltimore November 1-3—register here!).
Nevertheless, there is nothing in the current Humanitas or Ryn’s online piece that I would disagree with—for a very simple reason. Both restate the thrust of my most recent book Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America . The arguments marshaled by Ryn indicate, as does my book, why Straussians reign in the NYT’s Sunday Book Review Section as well as in Conservatism, Inc.
Although Ryn does not make this last point explicitly, perhaps for fear of reprisal, a fuller explanation is at least implicit in what he does tell us. His comments may also explain why my book, initially marketed by Cambridge with high hopes and considerable promo, received absolutely no attention in the national Main Stream Media.
According to Ryn, the Straussian persuasion assumes a spirit of alienation on the part of those who promote it. Ryn sees an illustration of this in Strauss disciple Bloom’s best-seller The Closing of the American Mind .
Bloom successfully took it upon himself in 1987 to teach American Christians what America can aspire to be, as he put it, “when it’s truly itself.” Bloom’s authentic America, which a universal nation that is true to its Founding and political creed, seeks to bring secular, individually-based democracy to the entire planet. When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings.
Bloom and other Straussians have a tendency to read their own preferred view of the America’s founding principles, as understood by themselves and their mentor, into long dead authors. Ryn correctly notes that Bloom, in a widely distributed commentary on Plato's Republic , informs the reader that Plato was defending democracy in his most famous dialogue. Strauss makes a similar statement, writing about the Athenian aristocratic historian Thucydides that his subject was actually vindicating democracy, despite Thucydides’ bitter contempt for the way Athenian democracy functioned during the Peloponnesian War against Sparta.
The conventional view is that Strauss and his disciples worked mightily
The performance of Norway’s conservative/populist/classical-liberal Progress Party in that country’s September 9th election caused much shrieking and swooning on the multicultural left.
Nilsen’s column [sic] led off with a picture of fellow Norwegian Anders Breivik, perpetrator of the appalling July 2011 murders in Oslo and nearby Utøya Island. The connection here was that Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party in 1999-2007, resigning his membership because he found the party’s line against multiculturalism insufficiently stern.
For an approximate equivalent, you can imagine VDARE.com running a story about Democrats doing well in the 2014 congressional midterm elections, the story prominently decorated with a picture of Washington Navy Yard killer Aaron Alexis, a liberal Democrat. (We promise not to.)
Mr. Nilsen’s hyperventilating is even stranger in that the Progress Party’s performance in this election was not very good, their representation in Norway’s 169-seat parliament dropping from 41 seats to 29.
What disturbed Mr. Nilsen was rather the overall performance of the rightist parties, which together attained a wafer-thin parliamentary majority of 2 seats over the left-green coalition, which has been ruling since 2009 with a majority of 7. Some “lurch”!
Indeed, analysts discount the drop in support for Progress by noting that the Conservative Party, which did exceptionally well—from 30 seats to 48—has adopted some of the Progress Party’s ideas, leading Progress supporters to some strategic vote-switching.
The rightist majority will only be a majority if Progress is fully included in government. Everyone assumes they will be. Progress helped prop up a center-right coalition in 2001-2005, but the coalition parties did not bring them in to decision-making. Now, with less of a fjord to be bridged between Conservative and Progress policy positions, there is no longer any reason for the mainstream Right to keep Progress at arm’s length.
Progress is pretty much what VDARE.com urges our own Republican Party to be: low-tax, small-government, classical-liberal, culturally conservative, and immigration-restrictionist. It is led by 44-year-old, agreeably-Scandinavian-looking Siv Jensen (who, although a spinster, is not a strumpet: the headline “Siv Jensen har stumpet røyken” on that 2011 link translates as “Siv Jensen has quit smoking”).
Even more encouraging to us, Progress went through a schism in the early 1990s over open-borders libertarianism. The Paulites eventually decamped and formed their own party, which soon withered on the vine.
Other good news from Norway: two years ago the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), a mainstream-conservative business lobby, came out against unskilled immigration, noting that (via Google Translate):
Immigrants threaten the welfare state and [cost] too much. They work for a short time before they end up on welfare and [are] too little productive. [NHO will have fewer immigrants, ABC Nyheter, May 10, 2011.]
There are some slight qualifications to be made there. The immigration being spoken of in the NHO report, which it is now quite respectable to oppose, is of Muslims and Africans—“asylum seekers,” in the Euro-jargon of immigration. Immigration of Swedes,
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people