Jorge Ramos: Blue-Eyed Boy Of The Treason Lobby

The hierarchy of television
networks is usually said to consist of six major
players: the Top Four (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox); the Next Two
(UPN and WB, fighting for fifth place).

But in fact

Univision
, the Spanish-language network owned by
billionaire Italian-American

Jerrold Perenchio
, is already well ahead of UPN and
WB in the ratings.

For 17 years, Univision`s nightly
news anchorman has been Jorge Ramos, [Email
him
.)] a

handsome devil
who looks like a younger, much less

tanned
version of actor

George Hamilton
.

While admiring the

cover
of Ramos` new

book
, The Latino Wave: How Hispanics Will Elect
the Next American President
, my wife and I got into
an argument over whether his piercing eyes were closer
in color to the

Oxford blue
of his customary

shirt
, or to the turquoise background that the art
director has added to emphasize the blueness of his
orbs.

But in either case, this blue
eyes-centric cover hammers home the message that`s
essential to his enormous popularity among
Spanish-speaking viewers: Ramos isn`t some dusky peon,
but a descendent of Conquistadors—on
both sides of his
family.

Yet, curiously, in this book
celebrating the Latinoization of the U.S., Ramos doesn`t
mention his Hispanic culture`s fetishization of blue
eyes and

fair hair
—notoriously

exemplified
by the countless

blonde bimbas
seen on Univision—as one of the gifts
that massive immigration is bringing to America.

Ramos is a stealth superstar. If
you don`t speak Spanish—or

read
VDARE.com —you`ve probably never heard of him.
Yet, Hispanic Trends magazine ranks him the
third most important Latino
in America.

Ramos is an important new
phenomenon. In the past, Mexicans with Ramos` charisma
typically either stayed home and enjoyed the sweet life
as part of the ruling elite; or (like, say, actor

Ricardo Montalban
) they moved to America and tried
to make it in the enormous English-language market. This
provided pro-assimilation role models for their fellow
immigrants.

The post-1965 immigration disaster,
however, is allowing Ramos to enjoy the best of both
worlds. He can make it big in America while still living
in a
Latin cocoon
in Florida.

And that encourages him to use his
celebrity to promote

Latin cultural hegemony
within the United States.
Ramos sees immigration and the high Hispanic birthrate
as Latinoizing America. And, as a Latino celebrity, he
strongly favors Latin demographic imperialism.

Ramos is a man with a mission:
keeping Latinos from fully assimilating into the
American mainstream. He writes:

"I`m
not one of those people who thinks that the common bond
that unites those of us who live in the United States is
the

English language.
No, I believe that this country`s
two main characteristics are its acceptance of
immigrants and its tolerance for diversity. These things
are what bind us together; we`re here thanks to these
unifying principles. That`s what it means to be an
American. Not your ability to speak English. Talk to me
in Spanish … or at least try. I sometimes go entire days
without having to speak a single word of English…"

Of course, if Americans be
persuaded that English is no longer the nation`s common
bond, Hispanics can continue watching Univision`s

Spanish-language broadcasts.

Mr. Perenchio must be pleased to
have such a loyal lackey. Reading this book, I lost
track of how many times Ramos argues that various
politicians doomed their campaigns by not buying enough
spots on Univision. For example:


"Nevertheless, the

Elian case
was not what cost Gore

Florida
[in 2000]. The error was in the
campaign`s decision not to invest money in
Spanish-language television in Miami."

Ramos seems to be succeeding in
rallying his faction. He claims that the percentage of
Hispanic voters in America who watch the news in
Spanish grew from 25% to 45% over the last decade.

Whether it`s good for American
democracy and unity that two separate "information
spheres" are developing here is not an issue that
worries Ramos.

Whether or not it`s bad for
America, it`s good for his bank account.

Besides, what does he care? He
remains a

Mexican citizen
even after 21 years in the U.S.

Since Ramos wrote The Latino
Wave
in Spanish for his Spanish-speaking fans (it
was translated by Ezra E. Fitz), he can be franker than
mass immigration apologists usually are when addressing
an English-speaking audience. He gloats:

"But
while no fighting is taking place on the military or
legal fronts, there is fighting going on culturally.
It`s the Reconquest. Latinos are

culturally reconquering
lands that once were part of
the Spanish empire…"

Accordingly, much of Ramos`
argument will be more familiar to readers of VDARE.com
than to the gullible readers of the

Wall Street Journal
Editorial Page
. Thus while Ramos pays lip
service to
"proposition nation"
ideology to con
non-Hispanics into allowing unlimited immigration into
their country, he clearly believes that ethnicity and
demographics matter. And he wants his ethnic group to
win.

Ramos observes:

"I had
the opportunity to debate
[Pat] Buchanan on
television two or three times, and it has always
fascinated me that the same arguments and statistics
that he cites as evidence of the wrong turn that United
States has made with regard to its immigration policy
are the same ones that I use to underline the enormous
contributions immigrants are making to this country."

Like

Buchanan
, Ramos sees

demography as destiny
. The main difference is that,
being a Mexican national, he views the ongoing

Reconquest
as a victory for him and his.

Actually, Ramos doesn`t make much
of an effort to document exactly what cultural
advantages—besides chimichangas—Americans are
absorbing from Latin America.

Why should he? He cares about
what`s good for himself and his own people, not what`s
in the best interest of Americans. He thinks he has
demographic momentum on his side, and both

George W. Bush
and

John Kerry
want to increase the rate of
Latinoization, so why should Ramos bother trying to
persuade non-Hispanics they are getting a good deal? The
fix is already in.

Finally, on page 185, he does get
around to devoting half a sentence to a hazy list of the
virtues that Latin Americans are supposedly bringing us:

"a
sense of the sacred, respect for one`s elders, and
constant commitment to one`s family."

Needless to say, Ramos doesn`t
explain how that "constant commitment" can be reconciled
with the

43.5 percent
illegitimacy rate now found among
Hispanic-Americans.

Hispanics are assimilating—but to
the African-American model.

Furthermore, this TV personality`s
boasting about the growing political power of Hispanics
really focuses attention on perhaps the two least
appealing facets of Latin American culture: the awful
television and the worse politics.

As an electoral analyst, Ramos is
no worse than 95% of the media. But that`s not saying
much.

The first sentence of his Chapter
One is "The Latino vote put George W. Bush into the
White House."

Now, you might recall that Gore
whupped Bush

62-35 among Hispanics,
but that just shows you don`t
understand Ramos` Latino Logic. See, Bush won the
critical state of Florida by only 500 votes. And more
than 500 Hispanics in Florida voted for Bush! So, hesto-presto:
Bush owes his Presidency to Latinos.

Of course, exactly the same thing
is true for any and all demographic groups more numerous
on the Florida electoral rolls than the

pygmy negritos of the Andaman Islands
.

The reality, as I have argued
repeatedly, is that the peculiarities of the

Electoral College
are likely to deprive Hispanics
this November of much of the influence that their six
percent or so of the electorate would seemingly provide.

That`s because Latinos are
concentrated in states that aren`t expected to be close.
In only two of the 16 "battleground states" on
the Wall Street Journal`s

list
did Hispanics cast over 10 percent of the vote
in 2000.

While the battleground states
accounted for one third of the total vote in 2000, they
were home to only 21 percent of Hispanic voters,
according to my analysis of Census data.

On the other hand, the "rotten
borough
" effect, whereby

non-citizen immigrants, including illegals
, are
counted in drawing up districts, means that it typically
takes fewer votes to elect a Hispanic legislator. So
Hispanics are increasingly over-represented in
legislatures. For example, in California, 22.5 percent
of the legislators are Latino, compared to only about 10
percent of the voters in 2002.

Not surprisingly, Ramos does not
call attention to this bizarre and growing
anomaly—which, of course, Americans could easily end
through legislation.

Ramos claims that both parties
should bid frantically for the Hispanic vote (on
Univision?) because it could easily shift from Democrats
to Republicans.

But the truth is that the Hispanic
partisan slant is

boringly consistent
. Every year, you can bet the
house that the Democrats will win the Hispanic vote in a
landslide.

The Hispanic vote fluctuates in
parallel with the white vote—but many points further to
the left. For example, in the last

dozen
House of Representatives overall races going
back through 1980, the GOP`s national share of the
Latino vote has never been more than 28 points worse
than its share of the white vote, or less than 19 points
worse.

But it has always been worse—a lot
worse. The inexorable logic of this situation: Hispanic
immigration is a

long-term disaster for the GOP.

What have four years of

Hispandering
netted Bush? Predictably nothing. In
2000, he lost 62-35 among Latinos. Polls conducted just
before the Democratic Convention showed him losing to
John Kerry

60-30
and

60-32
.

That puts Bush on track to do a
couple of points worse this year among Latinos.

So much for Jorge Ramos` huffing
and puffing—and

Karl Rove`s.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]