Show your support by purchasing VDARE.com merchandise. 
VDARE.com's Amazon connection has been restored! Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow 
Recent News
Profiles in Treason: Kennedy Dynasty Comeback Haunted By Ghost of Matthew Denice?
When Republican Scott Brown was elected to replace Senator Ted Kennedy in 2010, it looked as if a giant nail had finally been driven into the Kennedy dynasty’s political coffin. But that hope now appears to have been premature.
Joseph P. Kennedy, III, son of former Congressman Joseph Kennedy, has announced he is running for retiring Congressman Barney Frank’s seat. Kennedy is a 31 year old local prosecutor and is definitely a step up from his malapropism-prone father‑‑Stanford undergrad, Harvard Law School, and no known scandals. He also has fire-red hair and is by far the most Irish-looking Kennedy to ever run for political office.
But don’t be fooled. The young Kennedy is also a committed Hispanderer. While at Harvard Law School, he did volunteer legal work for the left-wing Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, whose past volunteers include Deval Patrick and Michelle Obama. Kennedy worked exclusively with Boston-area Hispanics, many of whom were almost certainly illegal aliens.
After law school, Kennedy volunteered for the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic where he helped organize the Dominican tourism industry (I don’t get it either).[VDARE.com note: It was eco-tourism.] His supporters boast that his ability to speak fluent Spanish will allow him to outcampaign anyone for the Hispanic vote.
Joe Kennedy’s entrance into the congressional race is the only reason I can think of why Scott Brown, who is now up for reelection, recently called for expanding Irish immigration by admitting 10,500 skilled Irish workers every year on an E-3 Visa. [Brown Seeks More Work Visas For Irish, by Noah Bierman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2012]
The E-3 is two year visa currently only available to Australians. It also has a spousal provision, the E-3D visa, which allows a spouse to legally work here as well. They can also bring the kids. And, of course, any children born here will be citizen “anchor babies” under the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. You can see how the numbers start to add up quickly.
This proposal is obviously unnecessary given that we already issue over 100,000 foreign work visas every month. So what is Scott Brown thinking?
Here’s my guess:
Brown’s opponent is consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor, Elizabeth Warren. Professor Warren is an Oklahoma-born liberal carpetbagger who will not easily connect with white ethnic voters, despite the glowing coverage she has received in the local Main Stream Media.
If Kennedy is successfully portrayed as the Irish candidate, then Warren may be able to cling to his coattails. But by supporting expanded Irish immigration, Brown hopes to convince those who support Kennedy to also support him, because he’s pro-Irish too.
Why is this so important? Although many would be loath to admit it, the Boston Irish—a demographic from which I personally spring—have much in common with American blacks. The Irish suffer an intractable oppression complex, a sense of ethnic entitlement, and a proclivity to violent behavior.
In many ways, former Boston Mayor James Michael Curley (1874-1958) invented modern “us” v “them” ethnic politics. Curley’s strategy was to foment imaginary grievances between Protestants and Irish Catholics for political advantage. He basically took English-Irish antagonisms and transported them across the Atlantic. It should surprise no one that James Michael Curley is the personal hero of former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who has modeled his own ethnic politics
The Fulford File| Neither Dirty Nor A Secret—Professional Hispanic Ruben Navarrette vs. Peter Brimelow On Immigration
Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr., [Send him mail], a member of the Washington Post Writers Group i.e. syndication stable, is a Professional Hispanic ™.
What I mean by that is that, while I suppose he’s as competent as the next hack writer at stitching together 800 words for print, calling the occasional source on the phone, and using search engines badly, his real selling point to editors is that he has a Mexican name, and is visibly of Mexican descent (though he describes himself in his biography, A Darker Shade of Crimson, as a “light-skinned middle class child of progress”).
So he can tell you how American Hispanics feel about immigration enforcement, “racism” against Hispanics, the “Hispanic vote,” and fashionable subjects like that.
(Did I mention that Navarrette is nominally a Republican? You know, like Linda Chavez and Raul Lowery Contreras. His column runs on Townhall.com.)
The way he personally puts this is in his self-promotion blurb is to say that his column provides “new thinking on many of the major issues of the day, especially on thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin.”
Right...sensitive Hispanic emoting.
“New thinking”—not so much.
Navarrette’s first book, published when he was 25, and which had, according to promo copy reproduced in Google Books a “25,000 first printing. $25,000 ad/promo” is called A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano.
The same promo copy says he was “dogged by whispers of affirmative action” at Harvard… and that was before his first book was published at age 25 with a first printing of 25,000 hardcover copies, and God knows what kind of advance. (You can read a review of it by an unimpressed Indian-American university student here.)
The most recent subject of Navarrette’s Professional Hispanic (marca registrada) emoting is Peter Brimelow’s speech at CPAC (or—to be specific, although Navarrette doesn’t seem to realize this) an interview that Peter subsequently gave to CBS. See below.
Naverette’s column was published e.g., in the Modesto Bee, under the heading
Dirty little secrets about the immigration debate, February 19, 2012
It has also been published by the San Diego Union-Tribune as At Least He's Honest, by the San Antonio Express-News under the title Immigration debate clarified by Brimelow, and finally by the Pasadena Star-News as Ruben Navarrette: Brimelow is a bigot,
That seems a little unsubtle, but I supposed they figured that “subtle” would be out of place on a Navarrette column.
Navarrette starts
“You'll often hear that the immigration debate suffers from a lack of political will. But what it really needs is honesty and clarity.
And so, thank goodness for people like Peter Brimelow. His beliefs are vile, dangerous and antithetical to the greatest traditions of this country. But what is extremely helpful is that he's honest and clear about what he believes.
Brimelow is convinced that — as he recently told a reporter for CBS News — "diversity is weakening American identity." He is not alone.
Is Obama's America God's Country?
The political beliefs of Barack Obama, said Rick Santorum last week, come out of "some phony theology. ... Not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."
Given the opportunity on "Face the Nation" to amend his remarks, Santorum declined the offer and plunged on:
Could Paul Babeu Be America’s Pim Fortuyn?
In 2009, J.W. Lown, the Republican mayor of San Angelo, TX resigned. Lown had been engaged in a homosexual affair with an illegal alien.
As far as we know, Lown did not make the decision after being faced with these allegations by the media or a political opponent. Rather, he was truly in love, but said he could not reconcile his oath of office with “aiding and assisting” someone who was here illegally.
Lown did the honorable thing and moved with his lover to Mexico to apply for U.S. legal residence. [Weighty decision led to mayor's resignation, by Matt Phinney, San Angelo Standard Times, May 20, 2009]
Paul Babeu, Pinal County Sheriff and Republican primary candidate for Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, apparently did not
Silencing The Critics—Pat Buchanan, Judge Napolitano, And Others
[See also The New Blacklist—Pat Buchanan On His MNSBC Firing]
In 2010 the FBI invaded the homes of peace activists in several states and seized personal possessions in what the FBI—the lead orchestrator of fake “terrorist plots”—called an investigation of “activities concerning the material support of terrorism.”
Pat Buchanan’s Firing: Leftist Coup De Grace—Or Pyrrhic Victory?
After months of suspense, it’s official: Pat Buchanan is finally off the air at MSNBC. The network simply released a statement on Thursday, February 16 that “after 10 years, we have decided to part ways with Pat Buchanan. We wish him well” It did not elaborate on the reason for his leaving.
But this come after a long, relentless campaign waged by the Anti-Defamation League, Media Matters, Color of Change, the Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com), the Human Rights Campaign and assortment of other left wing and minority interest groups. These groups have long kvetched about Buchanan, going into full shriek after the release of his book Suicide Of A Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?.
Buchanan’s major transgressions? The left wing Talking Points Memo helpfully compiled “Twelve Pretty Racist Or Just Crazy Quotes From Pat Buchanan’s New Book”
Among them:
- “When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate”
- The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear. Hispanics already comprise 42 percent of New Mexico’s population, 37 percent of California’s, 38 percent of Texas’s, and over half the population of Arizona under the age of twenty. ……. Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to “insure domestic tranquility” and “make us a more perfect union”? Or has our passivity in the face of this invasion
My Intel Insight: Obama Unpopular—But Immigration Issue Has Not Yet Begun To Be Felt
President Obama visited Chandler, Arizona recently in order to give a speech at the $5 billion Intel Fab 42 plant under construction there. I live a short distance from Intel—co-founded, as we are incessantly told, by Andy Grove, an immigrant from Hungary—so I decided to go to see if there were any visible demonstrations either for or against Obama.
I have a personal interest in seeing how the public would react to Obama’s Intel visit. I'm an engineer with many qualifications for working there. My test engineer background and semiconductor design experience should be in high demand—if Obama is right that there is a shortage of high tech workers.
But that hasn't been my experience. Except for a couple of short-term contracting jobs, I have found it nearly impossible to get interviewed at Intel. That company is far more interested in hiring cheap foreign workers than hiring local talent. (See this page to see how Intel gets away with hiring foreign workers even when qualified Americans are available).
When Intel first moved into Chandler, it promised, as part of a package of concessions from both the city and state, to emphasize hiring local people. Intel received its tax and environmental concessions—but never delivered on hiring local people.
My mission was to go to the Obama event to see if anyone was angry.
The first thing I saw as I approached the Intel plant complex [pictures, video] was a huge banner sign voicing support for—the DREAM Act! Admittedly, there were barely enough people to hold the banner up.
Most of the rest of the Obama supporters were carrying anti-Sheriff Joe Arpaio signs, or signs asking Obama to increase taxes on rich corporations like Intel. Plus there were noticeable numbers of lefties unhappy with Obama's war policies and a contingent of "Occupy" protestors.
Most of the the Open Border amnesty protesters were of Mexican descent. But a few were young, white, liberal college kids.
It didn’t seem the whites were mingling with the Mexicans, perhaps because their issues weren't the same. Indeed, Obama supporters were generally all segregated into different groups, which is kind of ironic since they were all supposed to be liberals. Of course none of the young whites seemed to have a clue that the DREAM Act is anathema to their career futures.
For the most part, the Obama supporters seemed to be giving him weak approval conditioned on Obama's ability to fulfill their agenda items. There weren't the usual groupies who love Obama just because of his race.
The second group on the opposite corner: a sizeable crowd of anti-Obama protestors.
This anti-Obama crowd was much more numerous than the group of supporters. Which is a real turnaround: in the past, when Obama appeared in Arizona, his supporters vastly outnumbered his detractors. Hmmm.
The majority of the anti-Obama crowds were Tea Party supporters who didn't want Obama to raise taxes on anyone—apparently including Intel, although it receives very generous tax breaks for operating in Arizona. I hadn’t seen so many Tea Party people in years. There was also a scattering of people who were there to support Sheriff Joe.
But one thing was notably absent from the anti-Obama crowd: the immigration issue [slide show]. There were a few protestors who wanted to stop illegal immigration, but their numbers were relatively small. My "Abolish H-1B" sign was the only one that tackled legal immigration. Which was particularly odd, considering that Intel imports enormous numbers of foreign workers—and that the Indian population growth in Chandler is provoking many conversations among neighbors.
Bottom line: Americans still simply don’t make the connection between job loss and H-1B or other types of legal immigration.
I stood on the street and paraded around so that everyone could see my "Abolish H-1B" sign. I received a few quizzical stares, but nobody seemed interested in what my sign meant, or why I was there. There were plenty of TV news and newspaper reporters looking around, but they ignored me.
The only attention I got was from a 13-year old boy who took the trouble to ask me what H-1B is. As I was explaining it to him, his mother chimed in that her husband has said he is one of the only whites that still has a job at Intel. She was very concerned about the demographic shift
Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico) | Make Pacific Steel Pay For Illegal Alien’s Kidney Transplant—In Mexico!
[See also: That Santillan Saga: Lies, Damned Lies, Immigration Enthusiasts and Neosocialist Health Bureaucrats, by Peter Brimelow]
"It's really troublesome that we've gotten to a point in this country where you allow a person to die because of his so-called legal status."
That’s what Ignacio de la Fuente, [Email him]President of the Oakland City Council, had to say on the plight of Jesús (pronounced Hay-Soos) Navarro, a Mexican illegal alien in the Bay Area who has been in the national news because his legal status is complicating his bid for a kidney transplant.
Navarro worked illegally in the U.S. for years. After 14 years working at Pacific Steel in Berkeley, he was one of about 200 workers at the foundry who were dismissed when a federal I-9 audit revealed they were illegal aliens. [Pacific Steel forced to lay off 200 workers, By Sergio Quintana, ABC, December 18, 2011.] As a result, the company was forced to lay off the 200 illegal aliens. (On the other hand, the Obama Administration did not, of course, deport them).
The complication: Navarro has a kidney disease, is on dialysis, and needs a new kidney. He had applied for a kidney transplant at the UC San Francisco Medical Center, he’d reached the top of his waiting list, and his wife is willing to donate.
What catapulted Navarro’s case into the national news: this past May the hospital discovered Navarro was an illegal alien and changed his waiting list status to “inactive”.
This led to headlines such as:
- No Transplant for Dying Dad Who is Illegal Immigrant By Hannah Dreier, Contra Costa Times, January 30, 2012
- Dying Dad Jesus Navarro Denied Kidney Transplant Over Immigration Status, but Supporters Try to Help By Ashley Jennings, ABC News, February 2, 2012
The case has now been nationally publicized, with an online petition
The New Blacklist—Pat Buchanan On His MNSBC Firing
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.
“Canadian Bilingualism & Multiculturalism as it Relates to America “(Yawn!)
Peter Brimelow writes: This was the title of my much-denounced but completely unreported speech to ProEnglish’s breakout panel on “The Failure of Multiculturalism” at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, which we post here in adapted form.
“Yawn”? Of course, I don’t really think the subject is boring. I think the public choice consequences of America’s creeping institutional bilingualism are profound. I think someone could be elected President by opposing it.
Someone? Anyone?
[See also Beware Bilingualism! The Catastrophic Canadian Case by Peter Brimelow]
Thank you, Bob [Robert Vandervoort, ProEnglish’s Executive Director].
Ladies and Gentleman:
Unlike Dr. Porter, [Rosalie Pedalino Porter] I’m still struggling with one language! So it may be that some of you may not be able to understand me, particularly in the back. If anybody can’t hear me just indicate in the usual way.
I want to thank ProEnglish for inviting me today. It’s very brave for a number of reasons. In the way back, you’ll see we have some copies of the Social Contract Magazine’s Winter 2006-2007 special VDARE.com issue which you can pick up for free. I don’t want them floating around my office anymore!
Are there any Canadians in the audience? [Sun News Network’s Kris Sims raises elegant hand]. Ah, so I have to be careful!
If you cross the border into Canada anywhere, you’re going to see bilingual signs in the airport and you’re going to conclude from this that there are a lot of bilingual and French-speaking people in the country. But this just isn’t true.
Less than a fifth (17%) of Canadians speak both languages. That number has not changed for many years. As far back as 1931, it was 12%. In spite of nearly 50 years of intense social engineering, since the Official Languages Act of 1967, that number hasn’t significantly increased. 
And most of those bilinguals live in Quebec or its immediate environs. Above all, there are essentially no French-speakers, and very few bilingual Canadians, west of the Lakehead. For nearly 2000 miles, there is almost no French spoken in the home.
But nevertheless, at the moment, there is a bill being considered in the Canadian Parliament demanding that all Supreme Court Justices be able to hear arguments in French.
That doesn’t mean having a translator and listening to a French-language argument—it means the judges themselves have to be French-speaking, have to be bilingual.
Of course, this also means, as a practical matter, that there are going to be no more Western Canadians on the Supreme Court. And that’s really the main point to grasp about institutional bilingualism: it’s about power—it’s about the distribution of power and perquisites in a society.
I lived in Canada as a young man and I wrote a book about Canadian politics (The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited). Canada is a really interesting society. It’s responsible for a inventing a great number of modern political diseases that have subsequently infected the entire world.
One of them is multiculturalism, which in a nutshell is the determination of the elites throughout the First World
VDARE.com, Multiculturalism And Mudslinging Special Interests
Peter Brimelow, the founding editor of VDARE.com, for which I have written many articles, recently appeared on ProEnglish’s CPAC breakout session “The Failure of Multiculturalism.” His subject was innocuous—Canada’s Official Languages policy—
The Continuing Relevance Of Sam Francis: A Friend Remembers
Sam Francis died of a heart aneurism, at the early age of 57, seven years ago today (February 15). But his work is living on in the alt-right blogosphere and even figured in last week’s hysteria over VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s appearance on a ProEnglish CPAC panel (Sam was one of the alleged “white supremacists” that VDARE.com has published). Two collections of his works, Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War and Essential Writings on Race , have appeared since his death.
And, significantly, Sam’s key concept of Middle American Radicals (MARS) is very much alive today, in the form of the Tea Party movement. As Sam described the MARS concept in his book Revolution From the Middle :
Middle American Radicals are essentially middle-income, white, often ethnic voters who see themselves as an exploited and dispossessed group, excluded from meaningful political participation, threatened by the tax and trade policies of the government, victimized by its tolerance of crime, immigration and social deviance, and ignored or ridiculed by the major cultural institutions of the media and education.
Sam’s career spanned the brief lifetime of paleoconservatism and he also was around for the start of the resurgent Alternative Right (Peter Brimelow prefers “Right Opposition”) in the early 2000s. Sam was unquestionably an inspiration for that movement, which acknowledges racial identity and human biodiversity (HBD) and the role of politics, religion, feminism and even capitalism in the decline of Western civilization.
At his career peak, in the early-to-mid 1990s, Sam was on the editorial staff of the Washington Times and his columns were nationally syndicated. He was also a columnist for Chronicles magazine and occasionally appeared on TV and radio. In addition, he was a frequent contributor to American Renaissance and Middle American News.
But Sam was fired from the Washington Times in 1995 for a speech he made
Viktor Orban And The National Question In Hungary
Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary and leader of Hungary’s largest parliamentary bloc Fidesz—an abbreviation for Flatal Demokraták Szövetsége, the Alliance of Young Democrats)—perhaps the most controversial political figure in the former Soviet bloc, is deeply interesting to students of the “National Question.”
A young hero of the resistance to Soviet rule and now the most popular political figure in Hungary, Orban has aroused violent passions among Western, and some Hungarian, intellectuals. His first premiership, from 1998 until 2002, was for the most part uneventful, but his second term, beginning in May 2010, has been turbulent.
The Socialist-Liberal coalition that Orban replaced had expanded the civil service, trying to buy its loyalty with early retirement and fat pensions. It had also accepted as citizens a wandering gypsy population and offered asylum to non-Magyars, including a sizable group of apparent refugees from Tibet.
Orban has significantly curtailed or abolished this. He has denied citizenship to gypsies who cannot show a long period of residence in Hungary. He has put refugee communities on notice that they can no longer expect to receive support from the Hungarian taxpayer.
Since Orban now enjoys a supermajority in the Hungarian parliament, he has met minimal resistance in introducing his reforms. He has even reached out to the more rightwing nationalists in the Jobbik (= “movement”) Party, the third-largest party in Hungary. And he has put members of this controversial, emphatically anti-gypsy party on cultural committees in the National Assembly, an act of defiance to the Hungarian Left
Perhaps Orban’s boldest measure: declaring Hungarian minorities in neighboring countries such as Romania and Slovakia to be citizens of Hungary. Hungary was one of the losers in the Great War and the 1920 Treaty of Trianon stripped her of two-thirds of her land and about one-third of her Magyar (ethnic Hungarian) population. Those ethnic Hungarians assigned to Romania were particularly badly treated; the ones who landed up in Yugoslavia were killed or expelled at the end of World War II. Orban has not encouraged Hungarians outside of Hungary to rebel, but his reclaiming them as Hungarian citizens
“High Fences, Wide Gates”: CPAC Continues Immigration Cop-Out
As others at VDARE.com have written (see here and here), our Peter Brimelow’s presence on a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) occasioned outrage from the Left. And, predictably, the Mainstream Media is dutifully repeating these charges with headlines like “Immigration speaker sparks controversy at CPAC” [By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CBS, February 11, 2012] and “At CPAC, Hard Lines On Race And Immigration Could Be Awkward” [by Corey Dade,NPR, February 9, 2012].
But the real controversy on immigration: the fact that, in the official CPAC sessions, the immigration issue was set up as a “debate”—when the plain fact is that this is an issue that conservatives should not be debating at all.
The panel that created Leftist huffing and puffing was merely a satellite breakout session on multiculturalism hosted by ProEnglish, the English-language advocacy group—not by CPAC itself. And it did not even deal with immigration. Nor was Brimelow’s speech on immigration. Although CBS and NPR chose not to mention it in their reports cited above, Brimelow was actually talking about the public choice consequences of institutional bilingualism in Canada—a major theme of his 1986 [!] book on Canadian politics, The Patriot Game : Canada And The Canadian Question Revisited.
The only official panel on immigration in the entire 3 day session: a short debate featuring
Tom Tancredo On The CPAC Smear
Conservatives are in danger of letting left wing groups define their own agenda. A slew of far left groups led by Al Sharpton, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the People for the American Way are attacking for CPAC for having a panel featuring immigration and financial journalist Peter Brimelow and Robert Vandervoort of Pro English.
Lacking from these attacks is anything that either man actually said themselves. Instead most smears consist of nothing more than a long web of supposed connections to “white nationalist” groups are made. The worst thing they could come up with against Robert Vandervoort was that he allegedly affiliated with a group called Chicago Friends of American Renaissance that was allegedly affiliated the Council of Conservative Citizens. Then a controversial statement that appeared on the Council’s website is shown.
No one is saying that Vandervoort ever endorsed what the Council wrote or did, or that he was even a member. Instead, he is tenuously linked to this group. Not mentioned is that many prominent politicians can be much more directly linked. Among the people who have spoken before the Council of Conservative Citizens Senator are Senators Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Governor Haley Barbour, Senator Roger Wicker, and even former Democratic House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt.
While I have worked with board and staff members at Pro-English for years, I have never met Robert Vandervoort. Therefore, I will qualify that if it turns out that he has or done or said something that is actually hateful, he should be denounced. However, these left wing smear groups have not even pretended
John Derbyshire's CPAC Speech: Will Our Multicultural Elites Ever Become Race Realists?
James Fulford writes:We’re reproducing this speech by John Derbyshire on the much-denounced ProEnglish Panel at CPAC, with links added.
Derbyshire is not responsible for this, by the way, we’re doing it on our own initiative. We’ll have Peter Brimelow’s speech later this week, and perhaps other. John Derbyshire notes on his own site that the participants in the panel were himself, “Peter Brimelow of VDARE, Dr. Rosalie Porter of ProEnglish, and Dr. Serge Trifkovic of Chronicles magazine—all four of us immigrants!”
Derbyshire is also not responsible for all the included links. I hate having to explain all this, but if you don’t, there’s all kinds of fuss.
Thank you, Bob.[Robert Vandervoort, executive director of ProEnglish] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I am going to put to you what I think you will find a rather startling, perhaps absurd, proposition: that the elite classes of the U.S.A. may turn racist.
As startling as it may be, this is not an original idea.
Charles Murray has been in the news recently on account of his new book on cognitive stratification in U.S. society—the trend, now more than half a century old, for professional elites to separate off from working-class Americans, developing different and diverging lifestyles, and practicing "assortative mating" — elites marrying elites.
This is a return to the theme of The Bell Curve which Murray co-authored with the late Richard Herrnstein, and which was published in 1994—almost twenty years ago.
As my starting point here today, I'm going to quote from that earlier book. This is from Chapter 21 of The Bell Curve, in which Herrnstein and Murray are discussing possible consequences of cognitive stratification. Perhaps the most startling of the possibilities they suggest is that, quote, "Racism will emerge in a new and more virulent form." Here is the passage that follows.
Brimelow At CPAC: Al SHARPTON Is Complaining About "Hate"?
I announced on Thursday, February 9, that VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow was speaking on "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American identity" at a ProEnglish session at CPAC. I thought of announcing that he had already been denounced by People For The American Way (sic) in a press release headed GOP Presidential Candidates Should Denounce Bigotry of White Nationalist Featured at CPAC. There were a few other alerts like it, all by groups that hate us. They all hate us because they hate hate, you see.
Tom Lehrer said years ago that “I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.”)
He really did, by the way—he was
Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico) | ¡Viva Puerto Rico Libre! Free Puerto Rico (And The U.S.) Now!
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul all apparently agree on one thing: if Puerto Rico votes for U.S. statehood, it should become a U.S. state.
Which may be about to happen. In late December of 2011, Puerto Rico’s governor Luis Fortuno signed legislation authorizing a referendum on statehood to be held on November 6, 2012— the same day as the U.S. presidential election—along with the regular Puerto Rican legislative and gubernatorial elections.
That referendum could lead to Puerto Rico’s becoming the 51st state.
A lot of people think that’s great, or at least they say that. The Democrats stand to get two more Senators, and several more congressional representatives and Electoral College votes, so why would they object?
But before making Puerto Rico the 51st state, shouldn’t we examine the issue and see how sensible it is? If Puerto Rico votes for statehood, are we duty-bound to grant it?
Shouldn’t Americans have a say in whether or not Puerto Rico becomes a state? And would it really be good for Puerto Rico itself, in the long run?
Puerto Rico is an island in the Caribbean, east of the island of Hispaniola. It has a land area of 3,515 square miles, which is bigger than Rhode Island but smaller than Connecticut. Its population is 3.7 million on the island, but there are about 4.6 million Puerto Ricans living in the mainland U.S.A. (Puerto Ricans are technically U.S. citizens and thus immigration laws don’t apply to them).
Puerto Rico is a distinct society. The island has been a U.S. territory since 1898 (!) but it hasn’t been assimilated. Attempts to make it an English-speaking societ
"Voter Suppression"—Obama Regime Code For "Resisting American Dispossession"
The Democrats, the NAACP, ACLU, the SPLC ($PLC to VDARE.com), and the rest of the usual suspects are trying to get America lathered up about "voter suppression."
And what a marvelous tool is that phrase: "voter suppression"! It brings to mind all sorts of horrific images: of men in white sheets and hoods with shotguns and on horseback or
US Courts Run By Elitist Law Clerks Who Hate America, And Think Iowa Is The Gulag
[See also The Fulford File| “Christophobia”—The Prejudice That Barely Has A Name, by James Fulford]
A year or so ago, I noted on VDARE.com that there may be up to two dozen non-citizens working as federal judicial clerks.
And I noted the problem: law clerks make law. Non-citizen clerks, however, may or may not live under the laws they make. And they sure as heck aren't familiar with local values. It's like a slightly attenuated version of being ruled by the UN.
But you need not be a non-citizen to feel like a foreigner. You can simply be an elite American law student—coastal, of course—taking up residence in Topeka for a year to clerk for a federal judge.
For a squirming live specimen of the grotesquely hateful attitudes attending this arrangement, read the following article, crossposted on the Above the Law website and written by one Will Meyerhofer:
Yes, there’s a catch [to clerkship] and it’s a whopper: Most clerkships—a whole lot of clerkships—require relocating to the middle of freakin’ nowhere.
If you’re like most educated people, you’ve absentmindedly noticed at some point that the United States occupies a wide tract of land. There’s a lot of that stuff in the middle—the zone with the empty square states they use for missile practice, and those ones in the South where they sprayed black people with fire hoses and sicced dogs on them (as featured in your high school history textbook)(unless you went to high school in the South.)
Yeah, those places.
I am scrupulously non-partisan in these columns—no one can gull me into revealing my sympathies. But I will say this: the frightful wasteland situated between the civilized portions of our nation is dominated by a political party whose platform includes a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw gay marriage.
The Clerkship Archipelago , February 1, 2012
I appreciate some of the things Meyerhofer, a gay lawyer turned psychotherapist who now blogs at The People's Therapist, has to say in his other writings about the mind-shredding experience that is the practice of law (especially at big elite firms—Meyerhofer worked at Sullivan & Cromwell). If my own years at mid-size regional firm are any measure, yeah, it's hell. (Though I don't know how he can counsel other lawyers to stick with it when his own brilliant solution was to jump ship—and then make a living off the remaining suckers. Shouldn't he just sum up his therapy in one word—"quit"?)
I also don't totally reject some of Meyerhofer's generalizations: that in “flyover country", life revolves around football, that good restaurants are hard to find etc.
But the intensity of hate for whites, the blanket smears of entire regions of the country, the casual dehumanization—is jaw-dropping.
Charles Murray points out in his new book
