Recent News

Grim times call for grim men

From my vantage point observing the sewer run of 2013 Amnesty War news, it has become clear that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has emerged as this year’s patriot champion.

Sessions is not only excellent on Amnesty itself, he is forceful and articulate in denouncing the stealth GOP Establishment agenda of accelerated legal immigration. How many other Republicans would dare say of the treasonous U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

The Chamber’s primary goal has never been to establish a lawful immigration system and secure our borders, but to get as much cheap labor as possible—regardless of how it impacts American workers, legal immigrants, and taxpayers in general.

Sen. Jeff Sessions slams immigration pact supported by GOP House majority leader, [by Neil Munro, The Daily Caller, February 22, 2013].

Of course it takes integrity to defy the Main Stream Media (MSM)/ Conservatism Inc. consensus—especially when the payoff for Treason is, as now, unprecedentedly large. (You there, Jim DeMint?

But what has really impressed me is the evidence that Sessions has the moral fiber to withstand the most extreme form of Reconquista mau-mauing face to face as vividly demonstrated in Latinos plead with Sen. Jeff Sessions asking him to help them and their families By Charles J. Dean, (email him) AL.com, February 20, 2013.

The outcome of the Czech Republic’s first direct presidential election on January 25^th was tipped by base appeals to ethnic loyalty, but the Main Stream Media (MSM) outside the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria has almost completely ignored this fact. The reason: The ethnic hatred was directed not against a group that “matters”—like Jews or Gypsies—but against Germans.

A wrong done to Germans matters as little internationally as a wrong done to the historic American nation matters in U.S. public debate.  

It should surprise no one that ethnicity is a powerful factor in Czech politics. The Czech Republic has a dismal record regarding its treatment of Gypsies (called Roma by Czechs and human rights NGOs) maintaining separate schools for Roma children and even having built a wall in one town to segregate the Roma ghetto from the majority population. The Czech Republic’s record on property restitution for Holocaust survivors is also nothing to be proud of—always a cheerful willingness to do so, but seldom any concrete action.

But Germans are a specialty of the Czech Republic: it expelled around 3,500,000 (in words: three and one half million) Czech citizens of German ethnicity in 1945-48. About 240,000 Germans died or were killed during what Germans around the world refer to as “die Vertreibung” (The Expulsion).

The legal bases for The Expulsion and seizure of all personal and real property without payment were the  “Benes Decrees,”—which also amnestied anyone who committed any violent or non-violent illegal act, including murder or rape, against the Germans. The Expulsion depopulated the Sudetenland, the Czech border areas next to Germany and Austria, and offered ethnic Czechs free, fully-furnished real estate just for the taking.

After the first round of the 2013 Presidential election, the field of candidates was whittled down to two: former Prime Minister Milos Zeman, a Socialist with good anti-Communist Czech credentials, and Foreign Minister Karl (or Karel) Schwarzenberg, a conservative member of an old, ethnic-German (but anti-Nazi) noble family and an early ally of former president Vaclav Havel. Zeman was favored due to economic conditions and various scandals in the government, but the race was expected to be tight.

In the course of a January 17^th debate between the two men, the Benes Decrees came up. Schwarzenberg, a prominent supporter of human rights and himself an exile for 40 years, remarked that “from today’s point of view” the Benes decrees and the expulsion of the Germans were a human rights violation that, had they taken place today, would have landed then-President Benes in front of the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity. [Beneš Decrees become campaign weapon, January 22, 2013]

Zeman wasted no time beginning what Czech, Austrian, German and Swiss papers have described as a dirty and dishonest campaign. He was no stranger to using the German issue to his political benefit, having referred to the Germans as a “fifth column” during his time as Prime Minister—a comment

As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow noted in his roundup of the current Amnesty push, the most important thing to keep in mind is that “We’ve been here before—several times.” Thus the Main Stream Media (MSM) has recently been hyping as news the attempts of La Raza Republicans to con gullible pro-lifers into thinking that supporting immigration control means you support eugenic sterilization and China’s policy of forced abortions. But this is simply an old smear recycled.

In fact, pro-amnesty Conservatism Inc. types have repeatedly tried to claim immigration patriots have a secret abortion/eugenics agenda:

• In 2004, Jason Riley who would later author Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, published a hysterical Op Ed attacking FAIR and Center for Immigration Studies of, among other things, being a “big fan of China's one-child policy” who have “made common cause with radical environmentalists and zero-population-growth fanatics on the leftist fringe.”[ GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City', Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2004]
• In 2006, La Raza Republican Chris Cannon faced an immigration patriot challenger in the Republican Primary. And, in addition to pretending to oppose amnesty, he also accused his opponent of having “connections to people and organizations that advocate anti-life measures such as euthanasia, sterilization, population control and abortion.” INFORMATION ABOUT ANTI-IMMIGRATION GROUPS, Chris Cannon website, Archive.org link, captured August 2, 2006.
• In 2007, when Tom Tancredo was about to enter the presidential race, the American Spectator published an anonymous blog stating “it’s not clear Tancredo is in line with the mainstream, social conservative wing of the GOP he seeks to align himself with” because of his ties to FAIR and other groups that are tied to people who support abortion rights.[Tancredo’s Dubious Allies, By The Prowler, January 16, 2007] The extraordinary mendacity of this charge can be judged from the fact that Tancredo had a 100% voting record from the National Right to Life committee.

Now, Mario H. Lopez of the Republican Hispanic Leadership Fund has written (or more likely put his name on) a lengthy piece in the Human Life Review, entitled “Hijacking Immigration.”

To give Lopez (or his ghostwriter) his due, this attack, with 197 footnotes and nearly 10,000 words, is much more comprehensive than the previous attacks. But while Lopez has more documentation, his argument basically the same guilt-by-association trick: many board members, former board members and/or donors involved in FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA, including VDARE.com writer Don Collins, Sally Epstein, Governor Richard Lamm, and—the ultimate bogeyman of them all—John Tanton!!! have supported environmental conservation and abortion rights in addition to their support of patriotic immigration reform.

Nowhere in Lopez’ entire piece does he even suggest that any of these organizations have ever promoted legalized abortion and birth control—or any indeed other policy other than limiting immigration.

However, the MSM, which usually presents the Religious Right and Grover Norquist as the root of all evil in America, has done its job in hyping this supposed controversy. The Washington Post published

Not so long ago “STEM” was an obscure acronym. Today everyone in official Washington seems obsessed with the (alleged) shortage of American STEM—“science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”—workers, a shortage that, we are told, could destroy what is left of U.S. economic competitiveness.

That this problem exists is one of the few things Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on. A bipartisan consensus also extends to the remedy: more foreign workers. The STEM Act, proposed by congressional Republicans late last year, would have shifted visas currently allocated to the diversity lottery to a new class of green card for foreign students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math. In 2011, there were 286,066 foreign STEM students in the U.S.—83% of them from Asia. [As STEM Act Vote Nears, Some Experts Dispute High Tech Worker Shortage, By Soni Sangha, Fox News Latino, November 28, 2012]

The bill did not pass, but the President furthered the cause by ordering Homeland Security to allow STEM students to stay in the U.S. an additional 17 months. All this on top of Mr. Obama’s executive order, issued shortly before the election, forbidding DHS from deporting illegal aliens who came here as children.

There’s something wrong with this picture. When a commodity is in short supply, its price rises, thereby increasing supply, reducing demand, and eventually eliminating the shortage. We’ve see this in oil, where sharply higher prices triggered development of new U.S. fields, reduced consumption, and turned the U.S. from a net importer to one of the world’s largest oil exporters.

Workers with STEM degrees do earn more than those

[VDARE.com note: Adapted from Steve Sailer’s presentation to VDARE.com’s first-ever Webinar, January 19, 2013. For other presentations, see here and here. Recordings will be available in a few days—or information when available, email office@vdare.com with “Webinar recording” in subject line]

Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address the first VDARE.com webinar. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.

I’m going to focus on voting by state because that is how Electoral College Votes are counted. For the GOP (or a GAP, “Generic American Party”) to ever take back the White House, it will have to figure out how to win more states.

I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about, the American Mosaic Poll. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.

Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.

For example, the Edison exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states—including Texas. But if you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas.

In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.

Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.

Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the two-party vote by race in each of the 50 states.

Note carefully: in the interest of simplicity, all the percentages here and in the rest of this article are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Third Parties—Libertarians, the Constitution Party, write-ins, and so forth. I used this approach in my post-election articles on the Marriage Gap (here and here) and on Romney’s fatal failure among Rust Belt whites.

I apologize for ignoring non-major party voters—I saw recently that Tom Wolfe reportedly wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012! But this expedient allows us to focus on just one issue: Romney’s share vs. Obama’s share. (If you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100).

In 2012, about 1.7 percent of the actual national Presidential vote went Third Party—about one percent for the Libertarian Party alone. This Third Party vote appears to have been heavily white. As a result, Romney’s actual white share is generally about a percentage point lower than I report it here. (I will post in a separate article a table reporting Romney’s actual white share, along with my reflections on the Third Party impact, shortly).

The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent of the two-party vote to Obama’s 52.0 percent.

(After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it

Sam Francis died eight years ago today (February 15). To a significant extent, the Conservatism Inc. parasite that captured the movement to which he gave his life depends on a diluted version of his work--while struggling to prevent the emergence of another Sam Francis.

Until he was purged, Francis’ career could be regarded as a successful model for young Beltway conservatives. He worked as a faithful Cold Warrior and analyst at the Heritage Foundation (where he authored The Soviet Strategy of Terror ), did his time on Capitol Hill with Senator John East, and received awards for his commentary at the Washington Times—the newspaper to which Reagan gave partial credit for winning the Cold War,. Francis was not a marginal figure throwing bombs from the outside, but a product of the late, great Conservative Movement™ at the height of its power.

Francis frankly acknowledged his intellectual debt to his conservative predecessors, especially James Burnham of National Review. From Burnham, Francis took the concept of the “New Class”—the apparatchiks who actually run the managerial state. The “New Class” has an institutional hostility to traditional familial and patriotic loyalties, seeming them as a barrier to their totalitarian control of economics, culture, and government. Burnham's used this analytical framework to study Cold War geopolitics. Francis applied it to something ultimately more important—the Death of the West.

The thought of Sam Francis can be summarized in three words—“who not what.” The New Class is pushing through a cultural, economic and governmental program that dispossesses the historic American nation. In theory, this should lead to a purely rationalistic and materialistic order where Americans become disposable cogs in the global economy. In practice, because race at the least “carries and parallels culture”  if it doesn't actually determine it, America as a meaningful national entity is being displaced and replaced by a distinctly alien order, gradually stripping white Americans of cultural, economic, and governmental power.

Whether the emerging non-white America will be in fact more amendable to technocratic rule, or whether short-sighted corporate elites are selling the rope that will be used to hang them, is a separate (and very interesting) question.

In Francis's view, Americans who want to keep their country must be

willing to challenge and derail the ruling class that gains money and power from the mass immigration it has permitted. It is doubtful that working through either of the two major political parties today can accomplish that, and Americans who seek to preserve their nation from the destruction that immigration brings will have to start

Conservatism Inc. has already transformed from movement to business and finally to racket. However, like some kind of twisted political Pokémon, it's now evolving into a little known fourth stage: a joke. And one joke in particular—“What do you call a black person at a conservative conference?” The obvious answer – “the keynote speaker.”

The next Great Black Hope of the conservative movement: Dr. Ben Carson, who recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. These events are generally the stage for well-meaning banality, but Dr. Carson broke the nonpartisan tradition to condemn Barack Obama's political agenda even as the President sat only a few feet away. [YouTube]

Carson ripped the idea of a progressive tax system, instead suggesting that God mandates a flat tax through the institution of tithing. He blasted Obamacare and recycled the old conservative idea of Health Savings Accounts—an interesting concept that was strangely absent during the campaign. Finally, and refreshingly, Carson attacked Political Correctness, aptly observing that it “keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of their society is being changed.”

And so it does. But right now it is also working to the advantage of the good doctor.

Since the speech, the sober neocons of the Wall Street Journal published an editorial calling for Ben Carson to run for President. [Ben Carson for President, February 8, 2013] Sean Hannity, having lost half his audience because of his support for amnesty, urged the same and gushed “I'd vote for you.” Joe Concha at Mediaite called Dr. Carson the Republicans' “Dream Scenario.” Rush Limbaugh echoed Chris Matthews's reaction to Obama by saying, “Talk about a tingly feeling up your leg. I got it from Dr. Benjamin Carson.”

As Carson is now retiring so he can “educate” the American population, we can expect the good doctor (and the lab coat that he wears to his speeches and TV appearances) to at least try make Republican dreams of African-American advancing austerity come true.

Of course, none of what Carson said is particularly revolutionary—they were simply standard Republican talking points, a less sophisticated version of a policy panel at CPAC. Nor would a presidential candidate who makes the case that “God” commands a flat tax be likely to make much headway among socially liberal swing voters in this year of our Lord 2013 (or should that be 2013 CE?)

This hysterical reaction (“we found a black guy who agrees with us! Let's make him our leader and President!”) suggests deep self-loathing and fear among white Republicans who have internalized the Main Stream Media’s narrative that they are racist, hate-filled, and worst of all, backward.

Nor is this a one-time phenomenon—witness the recent coronation of one-term congressman Tim Scott as Senator from South Carolina.

The last round of the presidential primaries presented the unedifying spectacle

Gun control seems likely to figure as much as amnesty in President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Vice President Biden will certainly get his wish (“we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media”) for campaigning coverage from the Main Stream Media.  And now the Administration can also count on Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently announced his conversion to gun control [Arnold Schwarzenegger On Gun Control: 'Leave No Stone Unturned', By Natalie Rotman, Huffington Post, January 17, 2013]

It’s worth contrasting Schwarzenegger’s sickening scuttle with the contrary evolution of another movie action hero, Charlton Heston, who began as a liberal and a supporter of “Civil Rights”—when most of Hollywood was afraid of getting involved—and ended as five-term President of the National Rifle Association. Indeed, Schwarzenegger seems finally have taken to heart the early advice of his Jewish publicist Charlotte Parker:

One person she advised avoiding was the forthrightly conservative Charlton Heston, who since The Ten Commandments had brought Moses-like authority to his political conventions. While Schwarzenegger’s political ideas weren’t that different from Heston’s [my emphasis—PK], and it would have seemed natural for the two conservative stars to stand arm in arm, Parker’s protective instinct was to keep Schwarzenegger away from the National Rifle Association’s Hollywood poster child. If Heston appeared as the same event, Parker insisted, Schwarzenegger must never allow himself to be photographed with Heston, or, she warned, he would become marked as a right-wing ideologue.

Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger, (2005) by Laurence Leamer, P.164

But back when Schwarzenegger preparing to take on the role of his life, Conan the Barbarian, director John Milius told him to hang out with Hell’s Angels to research the type of character he wanted Schwarzenegger to portray. And, Schwarzenegger biographer Leamer writes:

His natural sympathies were with those living on the wild fringes of American life. He fancied that these self-conscious outlaws were the torchbearers of a kind of liberty that those in corporate/bureaucratic America had long forgotten or considered mere indulgence. He was a skeet-shooting hunting control. He had, by his count, about fifteen guns in his house, including not only shotguns and pistols but an Uzi.” (p. 133) [my emphasis—PK]

Charlton Heston’s final book, The Courage to Be Free (2000), offers remarkable insight into the very different personality of the man who played Ben Hur. He wrote about his experience during the L.A. Riots of 1992:

Police couldn't stop the riots in the wake of the Rodney King trial verdict in Los Angeles. I know. I was there. I was at home in the Los Angeles area when those riots broke out just a few miles away. And I was armed. Like everyone within a radius of fifty miles of those riots, I was concerned when I realized that the Los Angeles police Department could not, or would not, control the carnage and vandalism. 

The fear ran so quickly and so deeply throughout the Los Angeles basin that even my liberal friends were frightened. My phone rang day and night. As TV news choppers hacked through smoke-darkened skies over L.A., I got a phone calls from firmly anti-gun friend in clear conflict. 

"Umm Chuck, you have quite a few... ah guns, don't you?"

"Yes, I do."

"Shotguns and... like that?"

"Indeed."

"Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one but they have this 15 waiting day period..." (p.73)

One can only guess that many of those who called Heston asking for guns had been clients of Charlotte Parker.

In The Courage To Be Free, Heston did not hesitate to draw a moral about the attack on America’s founding ethnicity:

The message from the cultural warlords is everywhere, delivered with the arrogant swagger of absolute confidence. Summarized, it is this: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant (or even worse evangelical) Christian, the Midwestern or southern (or even worse rural) hunter, apparently straight or admitted heterosexual gun-owning average working stiff, or even worse still male working stiff, because not only do you not count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as welcome and green as you hand them over, but your voice deserves no hearing, your opinion is not enlightened, your media access is virtually nil, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something about your new America. 

And until you do, why don't you just sit down and shut up! (p.5-6)

Sounds like the anti-white MSM chest-thumping after Obama’s 2012 re-election.

But, just as Schwarzenegger has finally steered clear of Heston, the David Keene NRA, now very much a part of Conservatism Inc., would certainly distance itself from Heston’s frank defense of white peoples’ right to exist.

Schwarzenegger’s recent autobiography Total Recall inadvertently reveals the cost of his social climbing:

I followed the presidential campaigns that year with great interest and accepted happily when I was invited to take part in the Republican National Convention in New Orleans in August. My assignment was to add celebrity power to one of the “caucus teams” of Reagan administration officials and Bush supporters whose job it was to glad-hand the state delegations and chat them up on key issues.

I’d been to Republican conventions before, but this was the first since I’d married a Shriver. Maria and I believed that we should continue as we always had: she would go to the Democratic convention and to gatherings for all the things she believed in, and she would cover Republicans as a journalist, and I would keep going to the Republican convention. But we needed to be careful to avoid unnecessary controversy. Everything went well in New Orleans until my friend and trapshooting buddy Tony Makris, the PR guru of the National Rifle Association, mentioned that the NRA was holding a brunch in honor of Texas Senator Phil Gramm—would I like to stop by? I’d gotten to know Gramm well by then. When I showed up the next morning, other celebrities were there also, but the reporters converged on me. The Kennedys, having endured two tragic political assassinations, were very antigun, so what was I doing at an NRA reception? I hadn’t even thought about it. If I had, I would have been sensitive enough not to attend this NRA event. They also asked, as a Kennedy by marriage, was I supporting the NRA? What was my position on automatic weapons? Saturday night specials? Sniper rifles? Cop-killing bullets? I didn’t know how to respond. I belonged to the NRA because I believed in the constitutional right to bear arms, but I hadn’t though through all those issues and details. There was even a question about my very presence at the 1988 Republican National Convention: was it some kind of statement in defiance of the Kennedy family? (p. 368)

Besides his Kennedy connections, Schwarzenegger worked his way into intimacy with the Bush family dynasty—he campaigned for Bush I against Pat Buchanan in

We all have our guilty pleasures in life, the kind of indulgences that we are half-embarrassed, and half-amused, to admit to others. For my wife and me, it’s watching ABC’s The Bachelor. —the latest episode of which airs Monday, February 11 (8 pm ET!)

THE BACHELOR goes to the beach.

In case you haven’t seen it, The Bachelor (and its corollary, The Bachelorette, with the genders reversed) is a reality show where a group of women spend several weeks vying for the affections of one man. The initial 25 contestants advance to the next round if they receive a rose from The Bachelor by the end of each episode. But there are a dwindling number of roses to dispense each week, so each episode has winners and losers. Those who receive a rose are typically ecstatic and relieved, and those who do not are typically heartbroken.

Eventually, it reaches the point where The Bachelor must choose the woman he wants to marry, and reject the runner up. Usually, The Bachelor proposes marriage, and the runner up walks away in tears. And it makes for great theater.

The show is ridiculous; the melodrama is intense. The women can be catty and backstabbing. They have teary meltdowns over the prospect of being rejected by someone they barely know (and the men on The Bachelorette are often just as bad). And, while some of the joys and sorrows experienced by the contestants seem genuine, much of it is way over the top, which is what makes it so entertaining.

Granted, only three of the bachelors/bachelorettes have actually gone on to tie the knot. But many of the male and female runner ups (known as "Bachelor alumni”) have dated and a few have actually gotten married. Given the decline in the institution of marriage nationally, that’s not so bad.

My wife and I started watching the show three years ago, right after our first child