Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
When I read news from the country of my birth, the emotions I experience (with rare exceptions) are disgust, horror, and despair.
This last week, for example, saw the sentencing of the Woolwich killers. These two young men, English-born to Christian Nigerian parents, converts to Islam, ran down an off-duty British soldier in May last year. Then, in a busy London street at half-past two on a mid-week afternoon, they stabbed and hacked the soldier to death, trying unsuccessfully to decapitate him, while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) [Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack, By Gordon Rayner and Steven Swinford, Daily Telegraph, May 22, 2013]
The killers did not take their sentencing well:
Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, had to be manhandled out of court by security guards after being told by Mr. Justice Sweeney that their crime was a “betrayal of Islam.”
Adebolajo screamed at the judge as he was manhandled down the dock stairs in the historic Court No 2 but, in scenes lasting several minutes, his co-defendant was held to the floor and cuffed before being carried downstairs head first.
Relatives of Drummer Rigby, who were sitting just three feet away from the dock, stood up and cowered away from the violence.
[Lee Rigby murderers sentenced to life in prison, By David Barrett and Clare Carter, Daily Telegraph, February 26, 2014.]
I would rather have read: “… after being told by Mr. Justice Sweeney that their crime was ‘obviously inspired by Islam’,” and that “Relatives of Drummer Rigby, who were sitting just three feet away from the dock, leapt forward to assist the court officers, taking the opportunity to gouge out the accuseds’ eyeballs and knock out their teeth…”
Had Mr. Justice Sweeney said what I wish he had said, he would have been stripped of his office and made the subject of a parliamentary enquiry.
Had Drummer Rigby’s relatives done what I wish they had done, they would themselves have been swiftly arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and jailed, to tremble in their cells at the mercy of the Muslim gangs who control Britain’s houses of correction, and who are welcoming the Woolwich killers as heroes even while I am writing this.
The Woolwich horror, and many others, flows directly from the decision by postwar British governments to open their country to floods of blacks and Muslims: the least assimilable of races, and the most intolerant of religions. When black resentment of the host society combines with Muslim fantasies of world domination, Woolwich is what happens.
It could all have been foreseen. We know that, because it was foreseen. Historians of the future will marvel at such an astounding act of national suicide—the more so because post-WW2 Britain was a quirkily conservative place, its culture as singular as Japan’s.
As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow wrote the other day:
DNA archeology has actually completely rewritten British historiography. It is not true that the English are descendants of Saxon invaders, except linguistically. The base population in England simply changed its language. It’s not even true that there is any ethnic difference between the Irish and the English. But 14,000 years of history is about to be overwritten by just a few decades of government policy. [Electing A New People in America and Britain, by Peter Brimelow; February 15, 2014]
Peter has been exploring his own ancestry, he tells me, using the 23andMe service. He (to be exact, his identical twin brother) reports in at 32.4 percent British and Irish, 2.2 percent Scandinavian, 59 percent nonspecific northern European, and 6.4 percent nonspecific European. And he is 3.2 percent pre-Homo sapiens, thanks to Paleolithic hanky-panky between our species and their cousins, the Neanderthals. Most Europeans are around 2.7 percent Neanderthal, according to 23andMe.
Curious about my own antecedents, a few weeks ago I signed up
Congressman Mulvaney talks to illegal aliens in their own language in Gaffney, South Carolina
The Treason Lobby seems to have complete control of the South Carolina GOP, as VDARE.com’s Patrick Cleburne just pointed out. He cited the recent gushing New York Times advertorial boosting Congressman Mick Mulvaney, who just held a “town meeting” geared toward “Latinos,” some of whom made clear they were illegal aliens. (So much for “living in the shadows”). Mulvaney spoke and answered questions entirely in Spanish. [G.O.P. Congressman in South Carolina Takes a Risk With a Foray Into Immigration, by Julia Preston, February 21, 2014].
“Risk”? Nowadays, opposing illegal immigration takes more guts. Of course, Julia Preston is a Treason lobby mouthpiece who has received many dishonorable mentions on VDARE.com. (See my Evangelical “Leaders” Need Reality Check—Evangelicals Don’t Support Amnesty)
We’re supposed to be impressed. But as a fluent Spanish-speaker long-resident in Mexico, who now teaches Spanish in an American public school, I most decidedly am not.
Why should any American politician be dealing with American political topics, for an audience in the United States, in any other language than English?
Even mass immigration boosters usually claim to support assimilation through the English language. And the various amnesty proposals give lip service to having Amnesty applicants learn English. So why should Rep. Mulvaney, supposedly a conservative Republican, be talking in Spanish? [Mulvaney dusts off Spanish skills for town hall in Gaffney, By Lynne P. Shackleford, GoUpstate.com, February 17, 2014]
But the Republicans have been following the trend of creeping bilingualism for several years now.
Preston’s portrait is breathless:
Even more surprising to the spellbound crowd at the First Baptist Church, Mr. Mulvaney said he and other conservative House Republicans were open to some kind of legal status, although not a path to citizenship, for many immigrants living in the country illegally. But he also said it would not happen this year: Republicans just do not trust President Obama to carry out any law they might enact.
“Spellbound crowd”? Wow.
But how revolutionary is the Mulvaney approach? The House GOP leadership appears to be for Amnesty - and for Bilingualism. How surprising is it that some lower-level flunkey would drink the Kool-Aid (especially considering there’s big donor money involved?).
Needless to say, “legal status but no path to citizenship” is a scam. If the illegals are legalized, how long until the Democrats figure out a way to naturalize them? And their American-born anchor babies, don’t forget, are already citizens.
Preston claims Mulvaney’s boldness is all part of a Trend:
The politics of immigration are gradually shifting in South Carolina
The Fulford File | Jan Brewer Says Businesses Can’t Refuse To Serve Homosexuals—The SPLC Says Businesses Shouldn’t Serve VDARE.com
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has cravenly vetoed SB1062, which would have prevented homosexuals from attacking people like, say, a Knights of Columbus Hall that didn’t want to host the nuptials of two women, or a wedding photographer who didn’t want to take part in a male/male wedding. SB1062’s title was “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The description of its intent: “Strengthens protections in Arizona law to defend against religious discrimination.” And that’s what Brewer vetoed.
Mark Steyn has a good column about Brewer’s capitulation, in which he mentions suspicions that Brewer vetoed the bill because of fears by Arizona businesses (=donors) about boycotts, and because she didn’t want to be known as “Jan Crow.” [If I Knew You Were Suing, I'd've Baked a Cake, by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline, February 27, 2014]
Of course, Brewer’s betrayal didn’t stop the hate against her even for a minute—Michelle Malkin’s Twitter curating site Twitchy has a roundup, of which this is a sample, from Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn [Email her] chosen because it’s not as obscene as most of them:
Just because Jan Brewer did good thing and vetoed #AZ1062 doesn't mean she's not still a vicious anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremist
Freedom of association means that people get to decide who they do business with. The famous “Lunch Counter Law” was designed to override the principle, because of the exceptional plight of American blacks, only with “public accommodations” in mind. The late Robert Bork discussed this in The New Republic before the Civil Rights Act was passed:
"The legislature would inform a substantial body of the citizenry that in order to continue to carry on the trades in which they are established they must deal with and serve persons with whom they do not wish to associate. In part the willingness to overlook that loss of freedom arises from the feeling that it is irrational to choose associates on the basis of racial characteristics. Behind that judgment, however, lies an unexpressed natural-law view that some personal preferences are rational, that others are irrational, and that a majority may impose upon a minority its scale of preferences."
“Civil Rights—A Challenge,” New Republic, [PDF] August 31, 1963
Bork doesn’t mean here a racial majority, but a political majority—the kind that passes these laws.
But nowadays, of course, a combination of judicial activism, Leftist agitation, and elite influence means that it’s a minority imposing its will on a majority.
In fact, as a person of mildly dissident views, I find that large, well-financed organizations are urging people to discriminate against me.
Leftist enforcers increasingly urge the firing of conservative writers who dissent
This may be the first and last time I ever write these words: America, follow Canada.
Our neighbors to the north finally have wised up to the international cash-for-visas scam. Last week, the country ended its foreign investor program that put residency up for sale to the highest bidder. We should have done the same a long time ago.
Canada's Immigrant Investor Program granted permanent residency to wealthy foreigners who forked over 800,000 Canadian dollars for a five-year, zero-interest loan to one of the country's provinces. The scheme turned out to be a magnet for tens of thousands of millionaires from Hong Kong and China. But as the Canadian Ministry of Finance concluded in its annual budget report this year, the program "undervalued Canadian permanent residence" and showed "little evidence that immigrant investors as a class are maintaining ties to Canada or making a positive economic contribution to the country."
In several provinces, the foreign investor racket was riddled from top to bottom with fraud. Whistleblowers in the Prince Edward Island immigration office exposed rampant bribery among bureaucrats and consultants, who helped their clients jump the queue. The government failed to monitor immigrant investors or verify the promised economic benefits of the "investments." The program didn't just fast-track supposed business people with dubious business backgrounds, but also their entire extended families, who walled themselves in segregated neighborhoods.
Ads in Dubai bragged that investors didn't even need to live in the country to take advantage of the citizenship-for-sale deal—and that their dependents could avail themselves of full health care and education benefits.
Fifteen years ago, an independent auditor hired by the Canadian government warned that he had "found that in many cases there was no investment at all or that the amount of that investment was grossly inflated." The auditor nailed the expedient commodification of citizenship: "Canadians gave up something of real value—a visa or passport—and received very little in return." He concluded: "A lot of people made a lot of money,
"The end to federal jobless benefits for nearly 2 million people has sparked a bitter debate in Congress about whether Washington is abandoning desperate households or simply protecting strained government coffers.
It is also providing real-time answers to a question economists have long pondered: How do people survive when they suddenly have no money coming in?
Studies show that about a third of the people cut off from long-term unemployment benefits will find help from Social Security or other government programs. Others will cobble together dwindling savings or support from family. But most baffling to economists are the people who appear to come up with more-idiosyncratic solutions, which are tough to identify and almost impossible to track.
Take Wessita McKinley of Capitol Heights. The Maryland woman had to think outside the box after her contract with a local school board ended last summer. An Air Force veteran, she earned a six-figure salary as a private contractor before the recession. But she took a series of increasingly low-paying jobs as the economy soured.
Now that her unemployment benefits are gone, McKinley relies on what she calls "legal hustling" to pay her bills and keep her daughter in college: helping friends’ children fill out financial aid forms, driving friends on errands, entering data for small businesses—all for a fee.
[What do the jobless do when the benefits end?, February 11, 2014]
Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage.
Apparently, increasing the minimum wage was not important for American workers during the first five years of Obama's presidency—least of all his first two years, when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed anything. (And did!)
No. The minimum wage did not become a pressing concern until an election year in which the public's hatred of Obamacare is expected to be the central issue.
As The New York Times explained, Democrats see the minimum wage as an issue that "will place Republican candidates in a difficult position," and also as a tool "to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off."
(Unlike Republicans, Democrats consider it important to win elections.)
To most people, it seems as if the Democrats are giving workers something for nothing. But there are always tradeoffs. No serious economist denies that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs. If it's not worth paying someone $10 an hour to do something, the job will be eliminated—or it simply won't be created.
The minimum wage is the perfect Democratic issue. It will screw the very people it claims to help, while making Democrats look like saviors of the working class, either by getting them a higher wage or providing them with generous government benefits when they lose their jobs because of the mandatory wage hike.
Since the late 1960s, the Democrats have been dumping about a million low-skilled immigrants on the country every year, driving down wages, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.
According to Harvard economist George Borjas, our immigration policies have reduced American wages by $402 billion a year—while increasing profits for employers by $437 billion a year. (That's minus what they have to pay to the government in taxes to support their out-of-work former employees. Of course, we're all forced to share that tax burden.)
Or, as the White House puts it on its website promoting an increase in the minimum wage, "Today, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third since its peak in 1968."
Why were wages so high until 1968? Because that's when Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act kicked in, bringing in about a million immigrants a year, almost 90 percent of them unskilled workers from the Third World.
Our immigration policies massively redistribute wealth from the poorest Americans
National Data| Employment Data Show Blacks Losing Ground To Immigrants During The Obama Years. But Apparently They Don’t Care.
Black Americans overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in his two presidential elections, but their employment prospects have, if anything, deteriorated during his term of in office. In particular, their position relative to other racial groups has worsened.
Historically, Blacks’ unemployment rates have been multiples of other major racial and ethnic groups. This relationship has not changed one iota during the first five Obama years. In fact, the latest unemployment report (January 2014) shows Black unemployment at 12.1%, or 2.12-times the white rate (5.7 %.) In January 2009 the black/white disparity was 1.79-times.
Of course the White House media machine would rather we all focus on the reduction in unemployment rates from the lofty levels of the early Obama years:
And unemployment rates for all groups are indeed below the highs reached in the early Obama years. Black unemployment is down the most—4.8 percentage points below the catastrophic 16.9% peak reached in March 2010. By comparison, Whites and Hispanics are now 3.5 and 4.7 percentage points, respectively, below their Obama-Era peaks.
The casual newspaper reader might take this juxtaposition as a sign that Blacks are gaining jobs at a faster pace than Whites or Hispanics. But this assumption ignores two major
President Obama’s Minority Occupation Government is shaking down companies around the country because of trumped up charges of “racism.” What’s worse, white taxpayers are financially subsidizing their own dispossession.
A typical example is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s lawfare on the trucking company YRC. Between 2009 and 2012, Obama’s EEOC shook down the long-ailing YRC Inc. no fewer than three times.
The EEOC simply presumed the white-owned firm’s guilt and attempted to destroy the company by initiating separate lawsuits and shakedown schemes against both the corporate headquarters and individual work sites. More importantly, even though the company repeatedly settled in order to avoid endless litigation, the EEOC kept inventing new charges. As is always the case with gangsters, no payoff was ever enough.
During the EEOC’s first attack in 2009, YRC was blackmailed into “voluntarily” paying indeterminate sums for minority outreach and additional affirmative action trucking and dockworker jobs for blacks, women, and Hispanics. Needless to say, just like every other large, white-owned firm, YRC was already wasting millions of dollars on affirmative action. At no point did the government even assert that the company had done anything wrong.
The investigation was concluded without a finding that YRC violated Title VII. [Of the Civil Rights Act.] 3-12-09 [Trucking Company YRC And EEOC Reach Agreement Addressing Diversity Efforts In Trucking Industry, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Press Release, March 12, 2009.]
This was just the beginning. Eight months later to the day, the EEOC again attacked YRC for allegedly tolerating racism.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, since at least 2004, black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility were subjected to hangman’s nooses, racist graffiti and racist comments…. [and] YRC subjected black employees to harsher discipline and scrutiny than their white counterparts, and gave more difficult and time-consuming work assignments to black employees than white employees. According to the EEOC… black employees made numerous complaints about discriminatory working conditions over the years, but YRC failed to take effective action to correct the problems… [N.S.: How do you “correct” unproven complaints?]
The lawsuit is the third [!] of three lawsuits brought by EEOC challenging alleged race discrimination at Roadway, Yellow, or YRC. Since 2006, the EEOC has been pursuing litigation against YRC, Inc as the result of [alleged!] discriminatory treatment of black employees at YRC’s (formerly Roadway Express’s) facilities in Chicago Heights … and Elk Grove Village, Ill... [EEOC Sues YRC, Inc. / Yellow Transportation For Widespread Race Discrimination At Chicago Ridge, Press Release, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, November 12, 2009.]
In March 2009, the EEOC had ignored pending lawsuits, misleading the firm
Thus did the New York Times’ headline, leaving no doubt as to who the black hats are, describe the proposed Arizona law to permit businesses, on religious grounds, to deny service to same-sex couples.
Examples of intolerance provided by the Times:
“In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.”
The question Gov. Jan Brewer faces?
Should Christians, Muslims, Mormons who refuse, on religious grounds, to serve same-sex couples—that photographer, that florist, that baker, for example—be treated as criminals?
Or should Arizona leave them alone?
“Religious freedom,” said Daniel Mach of the ACLU to the Times, is “not a blank check to ... impose our faith on our neighbors.”
True. But who is imposing whose beliefs here?
The baker who says he’s not making your wedding cake? Or those who want Arizona law to declare that either he provides that wedding cake and those flowers for that same-sex ceremony, or we see to it that he is arrested, prosecuted and put out of business?
Who is imposing his views and values here?
What we are seeing in Arizona in microcosm is what we have witnessed in America for half a century: the growing intolerance of those who preach tolerance and the corruption of the concept of civil rights.
We have seen the progression before.
Frank Borzellieri On White Liberal Hypocrisy: Smug Diversity Pushers And The Safe White Neighborhoods They Live In
The hypocrisy of white liberals over integration and the wonderful enrichment that mass immigration is supposed to bring is the gift that never stops giving. If there is one thing you can be absolutely sure of whenever you hear a white liberal espousing the vital importance of diversity, it is that the same person lives in a safe, lily-white community.
What was termed “white flight” in the 1950s and 1960s is a demographic fact of life and everyone knows it. No less an unwilling witness than the U.S. government has reported what everyone knows: when the non-white population of a community reaches between 10 and 20 percent, whites simply leave. Whites will not live in non-white neighborhoods in any meaningful percentage.[The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis, Housing Policy Debate, January 1997(PDF)]
I personally, as a libertarian, think all people—black, white, Hispanic, or Asian—should be allowed to live anywhere they want without being browbeaten or forced to live where they don’t want to. My problem is with white liberals who claim that “diversity is strength” but whose actions are very different when it comes to their own lives, their own homes, their own children and their own neighborhoods.
All of this brings me to the particular white liberal hypocrites who have caused me to be fired as a Catholic school principal, not once but twice, for political writings that were never secret and which Monsignor Michael Hull, the “Censor Librorum” of the New York Archdiocese, had already approved as not in violation of Catholic teaching. (See Jared Taylor’s article on the incident [PDF] and this video interview.)
- Corinne Lestch, (email her )the New York Daily News reporter who wrote the defamatory 2011 article that threw the New York Archdiocese into panic, is a left-wing activist and who prides herself on destroying people who don’t toe the Politically Correct line on race.
Surely, if there is one white person who must absolutely certainly practice what she so devotedly preaches, it must be Corinne Lestch.
But where does Corinne Lestch live? Well, in Bronxville, New York, a town that is 92 percent white and just one percent black!
No integration or diversity for Corinne Lestch and her family—just for everyone else!
- Fran Davies, [Email her] the public relations director for the Archdiocese of New York, who was instrumental in getting me fired from Our Lady of Mount Carmel School in 2011.
Davies is another blowhard when it comes to the great wonders and benefits of racial integration and diversity.
Any diversity for her? Yeah, right. Davies lives
It’s another Black History Month and at Ole Miss the iconic statue of Civil Rights icon James Meredith was draped—by someone—with a noose, which is the wrong kind of icon, and makes people crazy.[Vandals put noose on Ole Miss statue of James Meredith; he speaks out, By Paresh Dave, LA Times, February 18, 2014]
If this turns out to be a "hoax crime"—if the students who did the draping turn out to be minorities—nothing will be done to them, it will just be another exercise in consciousness raising. There was an earlier example on the occasion of the 40thanniversary of the famous desegregation: Another Fake Hate Crime - The Real Race Scandal In Mississippi, By Michelle Malkin on December 17, 2002.
But if the students who did it are white—the authorities have three white suspects—then their lives will be ruined. They could be sent to jail, on the theory that the noose constitutes a credible threat—which it doesn’t—or deprived of any chance for a higher education.
See “Hate Crimes”: Washington’s War Against White Working Class Dissent, and 2011 Campus "Hate Crime" Hoax Season About To Begin, by Nicholas Stix for details.
It may be that before America can talk rationally about race, the generation that remembers segregation will have to die off.
But we’re never going to be allowed to forget it. There’s a burgeoning industry of anti-white remembrance.
As VDARE.com letters editor, I answer questions from readers about pieces we’ve run. This came in recently:
I read a column/article several years ago concerning the book Roots, and how it was exposed as a complete work of fiction. I did not print it out at the time and a few years later I did a search for it so that I could.
I did not find it, but did find another that stated basically the same thing, that Haley's book was complete fiction and that he had even plagiarized from another book, and had not even destroyed his notes.
Now I cannot find either of these columns. Have they been removed from the site, or am I just not typing in the correct words to search by? Thank you for your time.
We never remove anything from VDARE.com, our entire archives are freely available. However, we never did a full article on the Alex Haley plagiarism/fraud thing. We linked to something on the subject in an old Sam Francis column.
The guiltfest was sponsored by an organization calling itself the "Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation" after the late black writer who cranked out the book Roots back in the 1970s, a work purporting to explore the author's racial heritage in Africa and early America but which was later shown to have been mostly fabrication, …
The Annapolis Guilt Wallow, October 4, 2004
At the time, I added a link on the words "mostly fabrication" to NBC Perpetuates Roots Cover-up By Angela Zemla, AIM, February 11, 2002. That link is still good, scroll past the garbled HTML codes.
A more recent overview is Jack Kerwick's column Alex Haley’s Fraudulent Roots, on BeliefNet, March 2012, on the 35th Anniversary of the TV miniseries.
Briefly, Haley claimed to descended from a Gambian slave named Kunta Kinte, who had
I am a Ukrainian-descended American software developer, based for the last two years here in Lviv, in western Ukraine, about 300 miles from the capital, Kyiv, where the worst of the recent civil unrest has taken place.
My lead developer travels to Kyiv every time violence flares up. He, like many Ukrainians, considered it his duty. Two days ago, when the latest and most intense fighting flared up, I texted him: “Should I wish you a safe journey?” He texted me back: “You’re late. I’m already on Maidan.”
He’s part of Ukraine’s miniscule middle class. He owns an SUV and a three-story home where he lives with his wife and two children. We go skiing together. He is not the type of person who’d be motivate by the thirty Euros a day which Paul Craig Roberts (alas!) claims was sustaining the protests. [US and EU Are Paying Ukrainian Rioters and Protesters, February 17, 2014]
Nor was Yuriy Verbytsky, a seismologist from the Geophysical Institute in Lviv and mountain climber who, after being injured in the protests and hospitalized, was kidnapped from the hospital, severely beaten, and left in the woods where he froze to death. Nor was Bohdan Solchanyk, a university lecturer killed on February 20th.
Today (Friday February 21) reports have been circulating of a deal negotiated between the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition parties. The deal would include immediate presidential elections, plus a roll back of presidential powers. (Fluctuating presidential powers are a sign of the volatility of Ukrainian democracy: In 2004, when the Orange Revolution brought Victor Yushchenko to power, the Rada [congress] limited presidential powers, but in 2010, when Victor Yanukovych, the Russian-backed villain of the Orange Revolution, returned to office, they were restored.)
Chances are that the protesters in the streets will allow the opposition politicians to speak for them, though they've scorned them in the past. (But there are also reports that the protestors are resisting, and even a rumor that Yanukovych has fled to his power base in the Eastern and proclaimed a separate state).
Personally, I believe the best thing for Ukrainians would be a dismantling of the hyper-centralized, corrupt, ineffective government bureaucracies and the development of local or private solutions. (I am skeptical of the European Union, which I don’t think Ukraine needs, and regret so many Ukrainian nationalists have persuaded themselves that it offers protection against Russia). But both sets of politicians contending for influence want the bureaucracy to remain intact so that they can simply affect the leader.
In this regard, the peace deal could be a lost opportunity. But, on the positive side, the people have shown their strength. The fact that they were able to overthrow a corrupt government will be a restraint on all future regimes and, because of Ukraine’s vertical power structures, there’s going to be a lot of change.
There seems to be unusual awareness in the US Main Stream Media that Ukraine has deep demographic divisions and that the Russian-speaking Donbas in the East, and possibly the Crimea, could secede. (Unusual because the American Establishment and MSM has a bias against secession at home and abroad—remember George Bush’s notorious 1991 “Chicken Kiev” speech urging Ukraine not to leave the Soviet Union).
This map (click to enlarge) is from Is It Time for Ukraine to Split Up?, by Brian Whitmore, theatlantic.com, February 20, 2014. It’s an interview with Rutgers University’s Professor Alexander Motyl, concluding that, while Ukraine probably won’t split up, Western Ukraine—overwhelmingly Ukrainian-speaking—would be better off if it did. I agree—it’s a good and insightful analysis.
Note that this map includes Ukrainian- and Russian-speakers—and also ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian. This may be a hard concept to grasp. It was strange for me. As the child of Western Ukrainian exiles—my mother’s family fled when the area was seized by the Soviet Union after World War II
Now here’s an interesting thing. Using the handy Google Ngram Viewer, which shows you how the frequency of words and phrases has changed over time in “lots of books” (the ones archived in Google Books), I see that racism is in decline!
The word, that is. After taking off around 1940 the word peaked in 1998. Then over the next ten years, which is as far as Ngram goes, occurrences of “racism” dropped off by 18 percent—nearly a fifth. Curious! [Click on any chart to be taken to the Ngram View.]
Not really that curious. Words and phrases with some social or emotional charge tend to lose that charge over time as people get used to them, like batteries running down. The charge then needs to be transferred to some newer term.
Accordingly, check out the Ngram for “white privilege.” Across those same ten years, 1998-2008, occurrences of “white privilege” show a remarkable 72 percent rise.
Not all these things are clear-cut. I tried to go from the social phenomenon (racism) to the individual (racist) but got ambiguous results. Occurrences of “racist” sure enough dropped 18 percent across 1998-2008, the same as for “racism.”
I thought “white supremacist” would be the recharged version, but it followed a different track, rising to five percent above the 1998 baseline in 2004, then dropping to two percent below it in 2008.
The dwindling use of the words “racism” and “racist” anyway means a net increase in honesty…I think. Or at the very least, a net decrease in confusion. That’s because people who used “racism” and “racist” always had to wrestle with a dread possibility: that these words might be applied to nonwhites!
Dictionary definitions seemed to leave this possibility open. The common essence of those lexicographical rulings was captured by the black historian Nell Irvin Painter. [Email her.] Racism, she wrote,
[See also Astonishing Immigration Patriot Victory In Montana—No Thanks To GOP, Which Ran Away (And Lost), by Paul Nachman. Steve Daines' NumbersUSA ranking is C+. ]
Montana’s lone U.S. House member, Steve Daines, is serving his first term as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And there is absolutely no doubt that Daines will soon declare his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Max Baucus.
When Daines ran for the U.S. House seat in 2012, he had no political voting record, as he had not yet been elected to public office. He ran—as most Republicans do—as a “conservative.” His campaign slogan was “More Jobs—Less Government.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? Politicians’ slogans always sound good. Well, now Steve Daines has a voting record; and, so far, that record is only more of the same.
In the first place, if a politician (at any level) does not comprehend the existence of the so-called New World Order and the propensity of government to construct a police state, he or she is totally incapable of defending our liberties. In the second place, if the politician does not have a basic understanding of, and a commitment to, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and U.S. Constitution, he or she is incapable of defending our liberties. And in the next place, unless the politician is truly honest, selfless, and without personal ambition, he or she is incapable of defending our liberties. I suppose we should also add the necessity of a politician having no skeletons in his or her closet that the enemies of freedom could use to intimidate and manipulate them with. That’s a tall order; I know. But it is exactly the lack of these qualities that has brought our country to the brink of ruin.
Whether Steve Daines is truly honest, selfless, and without personal ambition—and whether or not he has any skeletons rattling around in his closet—is yet to be seen; but if his votes on Capitol Hill during his first term in office are any indicator (and they are), Daines is seriously lacking in his understanding of both the New World Order—and elements of a police state—as well the fundamental principles contained in America’s founding documents.
Remember that virtually every vote any politician casts either helps to preserve and secure our liberties or helps to diminish and dismantle our liberties. And at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam how sincere the politician seems to be, or whether he has an “R” or “D” behind his name, or whether he claims to be a Christian, or where he goes to church, or how well-intentioned he says he is.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the way he or she votes. The American people don’t have to live with a politician’s sincerity, or party affiliation, or his or her religion, or good intentions. But what we do have to live with are the laws that he or she helps enact. Every law has the power of a gun (or a whole bunch of guns) behind it. Every law has the potential to take our property,
Everybody has an opinion about immigration, but most people know nothing substantial, beyond a few canonical-boilerplate bromides:
- "We're a nation of immigrants!" [nope].
- "America was founded by immigrants!" [nope].
- "The 'Statue of Liberty' invites immigrants!" [nope].
- "Everyone in America is an immigrant unless you're a Native American, i.e. American Indian!" [nope].
Then there are specific false "facts"—the opposite of Hate Facts, should we call them Good Lies? PC Factoids? Myth Memess? [VDARE.com: suggestions here please]—that come and go, depending upon the political season and the needs of the Treason Lobby. One has been repeated ceaselessly during the last couple of years to soften up our inattentive and gullible fellow citizens for a final, ruinous mass Amnesty: the claim that the Obama Administration is deporting illegal aliens at a record rate.
VDARE.com’s James Fulford recently refuted this here. But it popped up again immediately, e.g., in George Will's view-from-Olympus diktat on immigration for Republican lawmakers [Why immigration reform matters February 13, 2014], in an ill-informed and tendentious op-ed by David Nakamura, whoever he is, at the Washington Post [For more than 25 years, it’s never been the right time for immigration reform, February 5, 2014] as well as earlier in the headline of a February 5 Fox News Latino (urrrp!) article: Despite Record Deportations On His Watch, Republicans Don't Trust Obama On Enforcement.
The claim results from the administration's book-cooking. Border Patrol [BP] agents, who operate around the country's periphery between the various entry ports, and Customs and Border Protection officers, who man the ports, airports, and border portals, "return" many illegal crossers right back across the border when they’re caught. This stream of evicted illegal used to be counted separately. Now this same stream is laundered through Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] to bulk up ICE's aggregate "removal" numbers, which are what the Administration has been touting.
The year-by-year numbers are available from an October 2013 "backgrounder, Deportation Numbers Unwrapped [link; PDF], by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies [CIS]. Her data are taken from "mostly unpublished internal Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and ICE statistics."
However, a skeptical correspondent of mine pushed to see whatever "raw" figures were directly available online in official government documents. Using three such sources (see below), unearthed by one or other of us, I assembled the results for 2008 through 2013 into the following table of "removal" statistics for ICE: