Recent News

John Derbyshire: “Racism” (The Word) Becoming Obsolete Because Of Racism—Anti-White, That Is

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.]

After taking off around 1940 the word peaked in 1998."Racism"

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.

Check out the Ngram for “white privilege.”

"white privilege"

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.”

image"racist"

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.

image"white supremacist"

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,

Montana’s Steve Daines: So Far, More Of The GOP Establishment Same—Will That Include Amnesty?

[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.

Montana’s Steve Daines: So Far, More Of The GOP Establishment Same—Will That Include Amnesty?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,

Ukraine's Crisis, Not Ours

More Evidence Refutes “Record Deportations” MSM Myth

Everybody has an opinion about immigration, but most people know nothing substantial, beyond a few canonical-boilerplate bromides:

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:

Could Cantor, Goodlatte Primary Challenges Kill Amnesty/ Immigration Surge?

Goodlatte, right, and Cantor, left.

Goodlatte, left, and Cantor, right.

Immigration patriots inside the Beltway report that, despite deceptive noises, the GOP House Leadership version  of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is not dead—Speaker John Boehner is just lying low after his plan’s disastrous roll-out  and will resume the offensive after the primaries. In Virginia, that’s June 10, and two key Boehner lieutenants there do indeed have challengers: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Richmond-area 7th district and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in the Shenandoah Valley’s 6th district.

Cantor’s challenger: Dave Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College and something of a political veteran

Goodlatte’s challenger: Paul Bevington, an earnest 51-year-old high-school teacher and libertarian-leaning tyro.

Cantor has spouted awful Conservatism Inc. boilerplate about legal immigration and both he and Goodlatte also support some form of Amnesty for the millions of illegals who have crossed the border to do the jobs Americans won't do, from slashing suburban soccer moms and tearing their hair out to murdering potential prosecution witnesses who will testify in gang trials. Cantor’s KIDS Act, which would give Amnesty to the illegals brought here as children, is particularly mendacious: apart from the inevitable fraud, it inevitably means Amnesty for the parents as well. How could one offer the former without the latter?

On immigration, Cantor’s opponent, Dave Brat, sounds like he’s been reading VDARE.com: “Cantor is following the agenda of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce—pursuing policies that are good for big business, but come at the exclusion of the American people,” he told Watchdog.org’s Virginia reporter. He called Cantor’s support for Amnesty an example of “crony capitalism,” the website reported, and noted what everyone knows by now:

It’s incredibly unpopular. It lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in. This is not equal treatment under the law. People who are waiting in line [to immigrate] are fuming.

And reprising the thoughts, no doubt unintentionally, of the dear departed Sam Francis, Brat told the website, “[a]t every turn, the GOP establishment is favoring the elites.” Brat knows what anyone with anyone sense knows:  “A change in immigration policy means Amnesty.”

That’s what The Richmond Tea Party, which is fed up with Cantor’s move to the left, wants to hear, according to Watchdog.org:

Larry Nordvig, executive director of the Richmond Tea Party, says Brat has his group’s “100 percent” backing.

“Cantor is actively pursuing Amnesty,” Nordvig charges. “He participated in [link added] the ‘Becoming America Tour’ this summer with radical left politicians. He also had his chief of staff host a ‘summit’ with representatives from rabid Amnesty groups, like La Raza and the ACLU.”

GOP challenger rips ‘crony’ Cantor on immigration, By Kenric Ward February 6, 2014

Virginia Right agrees. “Frankly, Cantor is an embarrassment and a spineless representative,”

Obama(S)care: Con Artists And Criminals In Charge

Question: If Obamacare officials cannot prevent accused embezzlers from infiltrating their offices, how can they protect enrollees from grifters, con artists and thieves in the federal health insurance exchange system?

Was Frank Borzellieri Fingered By the SPLC $ecret Police?

imageIs Obama’s Cultural Marxist America worse than Communist Eastern Europe? In Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Tomas, a renowned Czech surgeon, pseudonymously criticizes the Communism regime. After the Soviets crush the 1968 Prague Spring, the Party uncovers Tomas’ identity and has him fired and blacklisted. He is reduced to working as a window-washer.

But is even that option open to Frank Borzellieri, who legally changed his last name to Bella, coupling it with his middle name Mario, after being fired in 2011 as principal of a New York Catholic school solely because political opinions he had publically expressed years earlier were rehashed in a New York Daily News “expose"—but has now been fired again as a principal of a Pennsylvania Catholic school after another MSM expose revealed his history? [Ex-Bronx principal fired from Pennsylvania Catholic school after identity revealed by Edgar Sandoval and Corky Siemaszko, New York Daily News, January 28, 2014]

It is critical to realize that, although Bella is blamed for speaking at American Renaissance conferences—legal last time we looked—the only speech crimes he is specifically alleged to have committed are quotations from columns he wrote for a Main Stream Media outlet—the Queens Ledger—while he was an elected official.

Bella served three tumultuous terms on New York City's District 24 School Board from 1993-2004 (when the board was abolished and power centralized in the Mayor’s hands). Under its president Mary Cummins, a political liberal although depicted by the New York MSM as a raging reactionary, the Board fought off attempts by Schools chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez to promote homosexuality to children as young as six, via the so-called “Rainbow Curriculum.” [Queens School Board Suspended In Fight on Gay-Life Curriculum, By Steven Lee Myers, NYT,  December 2, 1992]

Swiss Vote A Fire Bell In The Night For The EU—And Globalism

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has apologized for her undiplomatic "(bleep) the EU!" remark intercepted on her phone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Yet it appears that tens of millions of Europeans share her feelings about the European Union, which they believe has arisen to rule over them.

And Feb. 9, the Eurocrats heard a fire bell in the night.Europe's Tea Parties: The ECONOMIST doesn't mean it as a compliment.

In a referendum backed by the Swiss People's Party, a clear majority voted to impose quotas on all immigration, even from other European nations.

Though Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it has signed the Schengen Agreement on freedom of travel across European borders. Now it wants to be rid of Schengen—and any more immigration.

The Swiss vote was not just a shocker for the champions of "one Europe." It has given a tremendous boost to the populist parties on the continent. Hailing the Swiss vote, many are demanding similar referendums in their own countries.

Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party, which wants a referendum to quit the EU entirely and is pressuring the Tories of David Cameron, hailed the referendum.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, is praising the "great courage" of the Swiss and has launched a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in France.

"Similar calls have come from the Dutch Freedom party leader Geert Wilders, who is ahead in several recent polls; the Austrian Freedom party, which showed strong gains in September's national elections; the Danish People's party ... and Sweden's Democratic party," writes the Financial Times.

In Norway, the Progress Party, which is part of the government,

Democrat Discovers MANGAN’s And Catholic Dissent On Immigration

As a Democrat and (in my opinion) a liberal, I have been very critical of the Roman Catholic Church. But I am deeply impressed by a recent post at Mangan’s, a site previously unknown to me, and subsequent reader comments.

Mangan’s began

It would be an understatement to call the writers at Open Borders immigration enthusiasts; they make the Democratic and Republican parties look like pikers. And even they have found an organization that appears at least as enthusiastic about immigration as they are: the U.S. Catholic Church: The Coming Catholic Movement for Freedom of Migration.

This quote is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241. [VDARE.com emphasis added]

Mangan’s continues acerbically:

Got that? The "first duty" of government is not, to provide for national defense against armed invasion, nor protect its citizens from crime, not even to provide a social welfare safety net. No, it's to facilitate the entry of any foreigner who wants to enter the country.

This is actually more of the opposite of what a government should do; if it's going to allow foreigners entry at all, then the government should be charged with strictly vetting them.

Somehow I doubt that Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two doctors of the Church who wrote on the proper functions of government, would agree.

But these days we can safely ignore those two, because, er, because they lived so long ago.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Open-Borders Church,   January 26, 2014,

What I found especially encouraging was that this post attracted excellent commentary from its readers.

In all, there were 35 comments. Of course, I found some inane or even vaguely

Peter Brimelow On “Electing A New People in America and Britain”

[Peter Brimelow writes: This is an adaptation of a talk I gave on December 15 to the Intellectual Minds Conference at London’s Syon Park Hilton, organized by Andy and Emma Curzon. My thanks to everyone involved.]

Peter Brimelow’s speech starts at 42m20s.

Click here  to go to that point in the video on  on YouTube.com.

As some of you will be able to tell from my accent, I am actually an immigrant/ emigrant myself. I was born in the U.K. but about 40 years ago my twin brother and I decided that all was lost here and we moved ourselves to the Anglosphere’s last redoubt—the U.S.

Now, of course, we think that all is lost there too! But we’re going to go down fighting.

Actually, what the last 40 years have really taught me is the truth of a wonderful book about screenwriting in Hollywood, Adventures in the Screen Trade written by William Goldman. The central point of this book is that, as he puts it, nobody [expletive deleted] knows what’s going to work in Hollywood. They just don’t know whether a movie is going to make money or not. Similarly, no-one [expletive deleted] knew that the West was going to win the Cold War. After the fall of Vietnam in ’75, it was a universal if unspoken assumption among the American Conservative movement, in which I was by then deeply involved, that we were going to lose and that the Red Flag would one day wave over the world.

But it didn’t happen.

Now I know that none of you Millennials here believe this, because you’ve never heard of the Cold War. No one under 40 knows anything about the Cold War, except possibly my wife Lydia [Brimelow], who’s heard me going on about it a great deal.

The moral I draw from this is that Cultural Marxism can be defeated just like the classical Marxists were.

(One of the variables that nobody knows about, in fact, is demographics, or population growth. Nobody really knows why fertility rates fluctuate. There was this amazing period after the Second World War when the Baby Boomers happened. For a period of nearly 20 years, women did have well above-replacement fertility all over the Western world. It is something that seems to happen after wars, so maybe we need a good war! The point is we don’t really know what’s going to happen with fertility rates; we don’t really know what will happen next.)

The title of my talk is a reference to the famous poem that Bertolt Brecht wrote after the ’53 risings against the Communist government in East Germany. It goes:

After the uprising on the 17th of June

The Secretary of the Writer’s Union

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

Stating that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could win it back only

By redoubled efforts.

Then Brecht concluded:

Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

How many of you have heard of this poem? [Almost none, I was surprised]. Well, I’ve been talking about this poem for 30 years. I think it makes a great point because it’s exactly what is happening in the Western world. The governments are dissolving the people and electing a new one—specifically in this case, in the U.S. and the U.K.

Many libertarians dogmatically assume that the right to cross borders is a Good Thing and they don’t think about it much more than that. But it’s vital to grasp that what we are looking at here is a government policy—the US and UK governments determine who can come in (now primarily non-traditional and Third World) and how many can come in (a lot—much more than was ever anticipated).

When Senator Teddy Kennedy put through the ’65 Immigration Act, they said that immigration may increase by a couple hundred thousand, and that it would die away. In fact, it has been a million a year since then—the greatest influx in American history. The same in the U.K. There was a serious study [PDF] done in 2003 when they were thinking about possibly stopping the Poles from coming in after Poland joined the European Union, which they had the right to do. The Home Office estimated that the flow would be miniscule. But in fact, a half million Poles moved to the UK—the largest immigration into U.K. in the last thousand years.

In both the UK and the US, “Electing a New People” has

Walter Block, Rand Paul, And The Lost American Principle Of Freedom Of Association

See also: Jared Taylor Announces The 2014 AMERICAN RENAISSANCE Conference

Does Kentucky Senator Rand Paul think slavery was “not so bad,” and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made partial slaves of us all? The New York Times wants you to think so. It recently resorted to the oldest trick of slanted reporting to make a political enemy out to be something he is not—something Leftists do instinctively when they are alarmed about someone. If the Senator is not a certified enemy of the Republic, at least he is good pals with people who are. [Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance, By Sam Tanenhaus And Jim Rutenberg January 25, 2014]

Part of that “mixed inheritance” is, of course, libertarianism, which Leftists have never liked anyway. The NYT’s Tanenhaus and Rutenberg say Paul was “steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology.”

But the other part of the mix is even worse!— “Provocative theories on race, class and American history”!!!

These “provocative theories” allegedly come from a libertarian organization called the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Some scholars affiliated with it have said naughty things.

Tanenhaus and Rutenberg write:

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act [of 1964]. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”

Just to make sure you are sufficiently shocked, Tanenhaus and Rutenberg explain that views like this “champion the Confederacy.”

Of course, Professor Block speaks for himself, not for Rand Paul. But there is nothing Leftists like better than sniffing out the fact that someone they don’t like actually had lunch with a former neighbor of the girlfriend of a man whose father once voted for George Wallace.

Rand Paul is a libertarian and Walter Block is a libertarian, so if Walter Block says something the NYT doesn’t like, then Rand Paul might as well have said it, too.

But this is what Prof. Block actually wrote about slavery:

Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to "associate" with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.[Chris Selley Is a Pussy Libertarian; I’m Not, February 25, 2013 ]

Dr. Block has commented that he can’t decide whether it was “stupidity or maliciousness” that explains the NYT’s claim that he thinks slavery was “not so bad” and that he “champions the Confederacy.”

He now also says he thinks slavery was “one of the worst things that man has ever perpetuated against man.”

Maybe.

Nevertheless, entirely aside from the NYT’s using Prof. Block to discredit Rand Paul, it is refreshing to see anyone writing about slavery or the 1964 Civil Rights Act from something other than the now-obligatory Cultural Marxist perspective.  

Slavery, of course, is thrown in our faces as America’s “original sin”—as if we invented it or were the only people in history to practice it. It is now the sin than which none is blacker, and anyone who, like Prof. Block, looks at it objectively is a loathsome opponent of human decency.

(When the NYT article appeared, 18 of Dr. Block’s fellow teachers at Loyola wrote a letter to the campus paper to say they were “outraged,” and to urge the university to “to condemn and censure Professor Block.” Apparently they didn’t know he has been writing on

Peter Morrison Report: Stockman vs. Cornyn =Texas vs. Mexifornia?

[See also by Peter Morrison: Peter Morrison Report: Immigration, Abortion, The DOMA Disaster—For Texas, Red States No Way Out But Secession]

In a few short weeks, Texans will cast their primary votes for the US Senate race, and this will be one of the most important elections in our state's history.  That's because 2014 is shaping up to be a very important year in politics for both Texas and the entire country. 

Obamacare has now become the law of the land, and tens of millions of people have been shocked to discover the devastating impact this socialist abomination is going to have on their health and their pocketbook, all in the name of helping the "poor and underprivileged."  In addition, we're seeing yet another big push for Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, disguised as "immigration reform."

Who we choose to send to the Senate this fall may well determine how both these issues play out. John Cornyn is our current Senator who's up for re-election, but he's being challenged in the primary by Rep. Steve Stockman. 

If conservatives want to have any chance of repealing Obamacare or stopping Amnesty in its tracks, we need to send John Cornyn packing, and replace him with Rep. Stockman.  While John Cornyn has a conservative voting record on some issues, when it comes to illegal immigration and Amnesty, he has been either missing in action or actively working against conservatives.

Not long ago, newly-elected Senator Ted Cruz made a valiant effort to prevent Obamacare from being funded. Instead of supporting him in his efforts, John Cornyn opposed him—he actually worked behind the scenes to encourage other Republican Senators to shut down the filibuster.  [Exclusive–Source: McConnell, Cornyn Whipping Votes Against Ted Cruz, by Matthew Boyle, Breitbart, September 23, 2013]

There's simply no excuse for this betrayal.  Ted Cruz knew that our freedom to make our own choices when it comes to health care was at stake, and he took a stand to preserve that freedom.  Instead of fighting for our freedom right beside Ted Cruz, John Cornyn did everything he could to sabotage his courageous stand.

As a result of Cornyn's betrayal, America may be stuck with Obamacare. A lot of people are hoping to see it overturned when a new Congress comes in, but that's a real long shot.  It's possible it might happen, but it will be an uphill battle.

One thing's for sure—we won't be able to count on John Cornyn

John Derbyshire Says The 21st Century May Belong To Japan—Because It’s Biting The Demographic Bullet Now

With a hat tip to the Human Stupidity blog, I have just been watching the BBC documentary No Sex Please, We’re Japanese.” It’s a one-hour program broadcast in Britain last fall\ in which a reporter visits Japan to do a quick run around the place touching all cultural bases. In what follows I tag quotes from the program with square brackets showing minutes and seconds into the video clip. [Click on the numbers to go to that point in the  video.]

The reporter in this case is Anita Rani, a thirtysomething Briton of Indian (mixed Hindu-Sikh) parentage.

Ms. Rani is presentable enough and does a decent job on the documentary, though from within the standard-issue multicultural journo-liberal mindset. My only grumble is that her speech sounds are occasionally irritating. She eschews lateral plosion so that “hospital” and “candle” come out as “hospi-tull” and “can-dull,” and she tortures the vowel of “you” into a triphthong: “yieuw.” These faults are common among Brits born after 1965, though, and it is probably fogeyish of me to mind them.

Japan is interesting to immigration patriots for an obvious reason: it is immigration-restriction heaven. Asked what we think an ideal U.S. immigration policy would look like, we tend to say (I once actually heard Peter Brimelow say it): “Like Japan’s!”

We get to the immigration issue towards the end of the program. First we take the 45-minute tour of modern Japanese culture, although minus the robots, which Ms. Rani somehow omitted.

Demographic decline. We begin with a trip to the far-north town of Yubari, which has lost most of its population since the last coal mines closed twenty years ago.

Not very surprising, I thought, but certainly melancholy. We see some old photographs of crowded streets at festival time; now the streets are empty.

Ms. Rani visits a shuttered school.

[02m09s]: “There used to be 21 primary schools in Yubari, and now there’s only one… All the children have disappeared.”

Then the maternity ward of a hospi-tull—sorry, hospital. Our reporter consults a staff member:

[06m37s]: She: “How many women in Yubari give birth now?” Answer, in Japanese: “In Yubari City it’s zero.

Off to Tokyo, where now we see streets bustling with traffic and humanity.

[09m29s]: But even in crowded Tokyo they’ve noticed a change.

Ms. Rani consults a Japanese demographer, who tells her:

[11m21s]: Year after year the number born is declining; and it seems like the speed of population decline is accelerating, and it’s going to continue for many years to come… In about 50 years we will lose one-third of the population.

 “That’s a catastrophe for Japan,” observes Ms. Rani. “So why are the Japanese having fewer children?” She cuts to the chase:

[14m22s]: Couples are thought to have very little sex. In one survey just 27 percent of them reported having sex every week—way less than us Brits. It appears that relationships between Japanese men and women are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

That leads naturally to the next cultural base: the otaku, nerdy young males (mostly) who are obsessively interested in animated movies, shows, and video games.

Otaku. Ms. Rani meets two otaku (it’s the same in singular and plural) who have virtual girlfriends: anime figures in a game called Love Plus, on the screens of iPhone-size gadgets the guys carry around with them.

The otaku are very attached to their cyber-sweethearts.

[16m40s]: As she’s at high school she picks me up in the morning and we go to school together… After school we meet at the gates and go home together… When I go beyond the game and bring her to this side, I put her in the basket at the front of my bicycle. When I arrive where I’m going I take her out and we take pictures of each other.

The otaku who’s been telling us this is 39 years old— “but 17 in the game.” The other otaku is 38 (though 15 in the game), and… married.

[18m51s]: Ms. Rani: “What does your wife think about this, Nurakan?”

Nurakan: “Basically I’ve kept it secret from my wife. I’ve lied about it so I have to keep on lying.”

Ms. Rani: “If you had to choose between your wife and Rinko [the virtual cutie], who would you pick?”

[Long pause, laughter.] Nurakan: “I do my best not to get into that situation.

I think we are supposed to find this creepily sexual, but it came through to me as rather touching. As Nurakan explains:

[17m48s]: “I think I was most passionate about love when I was at high school… At high school you can have relationships without having to think about marriage.”

The take-away here: the burdens of adult life weigh more heavily on Japanese men than on anybody elsewhere. This has been noticed by every observer of the culture

What That Immigration Patriot Victory In Switzerland Means

An Anti-Minaret PosterThe Swiss get it! The majority of citizens in this small country recognize that the so-called “right” to migration is devastating this idyllic nation surrounded by the increasingly authoritarian European Union.

Unfortunately, as a February 10 article in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, the European Union will use economic sabotage to strike back against this exercise in democracy.

Switzerland was warned Monday of potentially serious repercussions in its relationship with its biggest trading partner, the European Union, after Swiss voters backed a cap on immigration in a referendum.

The outcome of Sunday's vote potentially undermines close ties with the 28-nation bloc that are crucial to the Alpine nation's economic success and that of its influential financial-services sector.

Switzerland now is highly unlikely to honor a pledge to scrap quotas for migrants coming from the EU's newest member, Croatia, on July 1—a move that would in turn trigger the suspension of other accords by the EU. Treaties governing relations between the two sides contain a guillotine clause that invalidates the entire package if one of component is terminated."

Swiss Migration Vote Threatens Europe Ties |European Officials Say Switzerland Can't 'Cherry-Pick' From Treaty Obligations; Concerns Raised About Economic Impact, By Vanessa Mock in Brussels and Neil MacLucas, February 10, 2014

Back home in the United States, our own illegal immigration invasion has always been subsidized by the cheap labor lobby. Similarly, many Swiss business groups were concerned first not about their country’s future, but about their company’s bottom line. The difference: in Switzerland, citizens can overcome the corpocrats.

Does this sound familiar, folks?  A solid 60% of US citizens have been against present levels of alien influx for decades. Nonetheless, the American majority is ignored by both Congress and the White House. The Swiss referendum is how an actual democracy should function.

Swiss citizens have made clear they require their government

…to renegotiate the treaty with the EU that guarantees free movement of workers. About Dominique Gisin, a Swiss Citizen, just won a medal at Sochi64,000 EU citizens have settled in Switzerland every year over the past decade, according to the Federal Office for Migration.

It wasn't immediately clear how the Swiss government would implement the new limits—the referendum calls for quotas within the next three years.

But senior EU figures made plain that Switzerland wouldn't be able to dismiss elements of the trade package that it later decides it doesn't like.

"Cherry-picking from its relationship with the EU isn't a durable strategy for dealing with Europe," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Michel Barnier, EU commissioner for the single market, said in an interview that the vote is likely to have heavy consequences. "We'll probably need to reconsider our approach with Switzerland in a general way." Mr. Barnier said."

Naturally, since all EU nations are feeling the pinch of alien migration, they are anxious to keep all doors open.

The larger question: whether there a comfortable limit on the alien percentage in any given country. The most ext

Amnesty: Is This Still America, Or Did I Move?

Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a RepublicanWith all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it's important to remember that Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration. 

So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns? 

The House Republicans' "Standards for Immigration Reform," for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents." 

As the kids say: WTF? 

That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country's history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could palm off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn't have to live in the shadows? 

Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn't know you guys had read the Constitution. We'll be quiet now. 

Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation's founding, it's a ridiculous concept. 

Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don't read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child's fault. 

But it's not the country's fault either. 

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to "punish the children," there's no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven—insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to "live in the shadows" because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught? 

How do you function like that? And how awful it must be when their dad is sent to prison! How do you think Jack Abramoff's kids felt? What about Martha Stewart's kid? 

Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn't we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26

The Fulford File | Deportation Has FALLEN Under Obama, Dammit—But Now The Treason Lobby Wants To Abolish It Altogether

The US does not have, as frequently asserted, a “broken immigration system”. It has a broken deportation system.

And plans are afoot to break it still further, because the Boehner/Obama amnesty drive appears to have stalled.

It’s part of a twofold Treason Lobby attack, coordinated in the usual suspicious way: the repeated claim that the Obama Regime has been deporting a record number of people [e.g. Barack Obama, deporter-in-chief, Economist, February 8, 2014]; and the aggressive assertion that, given the success of  DACA for young illegals—Obama’s not been impeached, has he?—he can stop deportations, effectively extending his Administrative Amnesty to every illegal in America.

Here’s a typical article, by Treason Lobby apparatchik Sally Kohn (note her full disclosure buried in the text):

The White House is deporting more than 1,100 illegal immigrants per day. Why Obama can—and should—stop sending away would-be Americans.

Currently, President Obama and his Administration are deporting more than 1,100 aspiring Americans every single day. That’s 1,100 mothers and fathers and hardworking folks who come to the United States because our economy desperately needs them, our businesses aggressively recruit them, and yet our laws have not kept pace with that reality.

The White House argues that it does not have the legal authority to stop or reduce the number of deportations in America—that the only possible recourse is passing comprehensive immigration reform.  But last week, advocates with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) filed a 41-page rulemaking petition with the Department of Homeland Security presenting compelling legal analysis of how the Administration can use its executive authority to dramatically reduce or halt deportations (full disclosure: I have consulted with and supported the activities of NDLON).  Most notably, the White House has already used this authority, enacting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program last fall to give temporary relief to young immigrants known as Dreamers.  The White House could very clearly, and very legally, apply such deferred action to other undocumented immigrants. [Links in original]

Obama Could Legally Stop Immigrant Deportations, By Sally Kohn, Daily Beast, February 11, 2014

Kohn [Email her] thinks all this is horrible, and that Obama has a “clear legal authority” to “unilaterally halt or reduce deportations “ which would be “welcome relief from letting Republican hand-wringing ambivalence drive the immigration debate.” (It’s called democratic debate, Sally.)

But let’s put this in perspective.

By any measure, deportations have been flat to down since the late Bush years