Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Recently-deceased black gunman Christopher Dorner is fairly typical of black mass murderers who feel that white society has wronged them, and deserves to be shot at.
- Colin Ferguson
- Omar Thornton
- Mark Essex, the 1972 Howard Johnson’s Sniper
- John Allen Muhammad, Beltway Sniper
- Jamie Foxx as the fictional Django Unchained.
And a whole bunch of guys you've never heard of, or if you'd heard of the incident, you'd say “That guy was black? I didn’t know that! Why didn’t anyone mention it?”
What makes Dorner different: for years, he was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, fired for lying about another officer’s alleged (by him) violence and racism. [LAPD records: Fugitive Christopher Dorner had troubled tenure, By Eric Hartley, LA Daily News, February 9, 2013]
Steve Sailer asked
Immediately after the New York Times headlined "Shooting Suspect’s Racism Allegations Resound for Some," the chief of the LAPD announced the department would re-investigate why Christopher Dorner was fired.
As usual, the opposite question from the one being obsessed over in the media seems more worthy of investigation: Why was this highly defective individual hired in the first place? Why did the LAPD, which is big enough to afford the most sophisticated screening processes, ever give this man a badge and a gun?
The answer, of course: Affirmative Action. In a piece for The American Enterprise, Jan Golab said
The LAPD was once known as "the world's greatest police department," due largely to its stringent character screening. Back in the era of Sergeant Joe Friday, LAPD candidates were checked out as thoroughly as homicide suspects. Even a casual relationship with any known criminal excluded a candidate from being considered as a police officer.
All that is now history. In a bid to appease racial activists and meet federal decrees, strict screening and testing measures were dismantled. New black and Hispanic officer candidates were hustled into the ranks at any cost. What former deputy chief Steve Downing called "a quagmire of quota systems" was set up, and "standards were lowered and merit took a back seat to the new political imperatives." [The American Enterprise: How Racial P.C. Corrupted the LAPD (alternate link) By Jan Golab, June 2005]
The reason for this decline: all those standards have a disparate impact on minorities. If you're going to hire more non-Asian minorities, you're going to have to lower standards.(Japanese-American police, by contrast, are actually good in LA, and as former LAPD officer Joseph Wambaugh pointed out in his 1972 novel The Blue Knight , would use Japanese martial arts to make up for their smaller size.)
There are many African-Americans who could be police, but they tend to not want to be police, because they think police work is racist by definition. Part of that they get from the media. Jan Golab wrote in the 2005 article that
"Today, cops all across the United States battle a foe as destructive as crime itself: the presumption of common prejudice… This view has been fanned by a media elite which has made 'diversity' its virtual religion."
Also, Affirmative Action in the rest of society means that a qualified African-American is much in demand in other, better jobs—jobs in which, unlike police officers, he can stay home nights and weekends, and not get shot.
So what do you get instead on the police force? Well, aside from the late Christopher Dorner, you get the Los Angeles Rampart Police Scandal. Dorner mentioned it in his rantings, and it’s being picked up the “blame the LAPD” media:
After all, this is the city where the videotaped police beating of black motorist Rodney King—and the subsequent acquittal of the officers involved—sparked race riots in 1992. The department was also embroiled in a rash of corruption charges and civil rights violations known as the Rampart scandal in the late 1990s and early 2000s; eventually an independent monitor was set up by the LAPD and the federal government to guide and enforce reforms. “The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days,” Dorner claimed in his manifesto. “It has gotten worse.”
After Christopher Dorner, What Next for the LAPD?, By Jens Erik Gould, Time.com, February 14, 2013 [Links added by VDARE.com]
Well, here’s what the Rampart Police Scandal actually was—a bunch of LAPD officers engaged in a conspiracy to shoot, and frame, a Honduran immigrant gang member, Javier Oviando. He was sent to prison, but later released, and is now in a wheelchair. That’s the main Civil Rights aspect of the scandal, as opposed to corruption.
Here are the players:
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
President Barack Obama has been chided for failing to keep his promise to visit the South Side of Chicago, which he dubbed “his Kennebunkport,” every six to eight weeks, [Obama's Chicago visits: Mixed feelings on infrequency of trips home, By Katherine Skiba and Becky Schlikerman, Chicago Tribune, April 12, 2011] But on Friday (February 15) he returns to one of the largest concentrations of black people in the world to push for more gun control. [Obama coming to Chicago to 'talk about the gun violence', By Ellen Jean Hirst, Naomi Nix and Jennifer Delgado,Chicago Tribune, February 11, 2013]
Obama will use the gun violence in Chicago, in particular the murder of 15-year-old Chicago public school “honor student” Hadiya Pendleton, whose majorette squad had participated in Obama’s inauguration festivities a few days earlier, as a symbol for restricting firearms all over America. Pendleton was gunned down not far from the Chicago residence of America’s First Family. Her four-hour funeral was attended by the First Lady herself. [Hadiya Pendleton funeral: Joyous memories, bitter facts about gun violence, By Dahleen Glanton and Bridget Doyle, Chicago Tribune, February 9, 2013] and Obama invited Cleopatra Pendleton, Hadiya’s mother, to Tuesday’s State of the Union address.
But the violence in Chicago and the “random” shooting of Pendleton—just one of the 51 homicide victims and 185+ gunshot victims in the city of Chicago in 2013 as of February 14—are a fatally flawed symbol of the need to force the American people to surrender the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms.
No—rather, the South Side of Chicago and the condition of the almost entirely black community there instead symbolizes why the Second Amendment must be protected at all costs.
Recall that Chicago was one of the first major cities to eliminate its citizens’ right to purchase handguns—in 1982, its city council passed what amounted to the strictest gun control laws in America. This coincided with Chicago’s black population overtaking the white population for the first time in the city’s history. Chicago was more than 85 percent white in the 1950s, but massive migration of blacks from the South and white flight from the city reshaped the demographics of Chicagoland.
It is the black population’s propensity to commit robberies, assaults, and murder using guns—even though they are illegal in Chicago—that threatens to destabilize the city, scaring away tourists, driving away capital investment, aborting gentrification. (There’s a riveting account of this mayhem in Sudhir Venkatesh’s 2008 book Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets).
This is a city where
- 94 percent of the gunmen who shot and wounded someone in 2012 got away without criminal charges [Most Shooters In Chicago Don't Face Charges, By Mark Konkol, DNAinfo January 24, 2013]. (The number was 91.5 percent in 2011).
- the embattled Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to pesky 9-1-1 calls that merely report “criminal damage to property, vehicle thefts, garage burglaries, or other crimes in which the suspect is no longer on the scene, and the victim isn’t in immediate danger” [Chicago Police Changing Response Plan For Some 911 Calls, CBS Chicago, February 4, 2013] in a bid to free up additional officers to patrol, ahem, majority black areas of the city.
- The Rev. Jesse Jackson—when he isn’t calling gun rights supporters “domestic terrorists” – is calling for the Department of Homeland Security to patrol the streets.
Incredibly, the death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan
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.
The last round of the presidential primaries presented the unedifying spectacle
You know how it goes. We’re shown the House chamber, where the nation’s highest civilian and military officials wait in gathering expectation. The Sergeant at Arms announces the President’s arrival. The great man appears at last. In his progress through the chamber, legislators jostle and maneuver to catch his eye and receive the favor of a presidential greeting.
On the podium at last, the President offers up preposterously grandiose assurances of protection, provision, and moral guidance from his government, these declarations of benevolent omnipotence punctuated by standing ovations and cheers from legislators of his own party, and often from the others too, after every declarative clause.
Things haven’t improved any in the four years since I wrote that. Every year grows stronger my yearning for a return to the modest style that prevailed through most of the Republic’s history, of the President delivering a written report to Congress on the State of the Union. Vain hope, of course: the politicians of this age don’t do modest.
Well, well, what did the President have to tell us about the State of our Union? On the topic that most concerns readers of VDARE.com, next to nothing: there was less than 2½ minutes on immigration in a one-hour speech, and this came at well past the halfway mark, when many viewers will have given up.
“Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants [applause]; and right now, leaders of business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities, they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform [prolonged applause].”
Mostly true. Business leaders have no problem with private-sector labor markets being flooded to bring down wages. “Labor” nowadays means public-sector employees, to whom immigrants are clients, i.e. bread and butter. “Faith communities,” formerly known as churches, are in the nation-wrecking van of immigration romanticism and refugee resettlement, to the disgust of many patriotic congregants.
In confirmation of that testimony, there were illegal immigrants sitting right there in the House chamber as the President spoke, brought in as guests of congressmen. Why did not the Capitol police arrest them?
So perhaps not quite all leaders agree. And what about followers? Oh, the heck with them!
What exactly is comprehensive immigration reform, though? Let the President tell us:
“Real reform means stronger border security, and we can build on the progress my administration’s already made, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history . . .”
There flashed upon my inward eye at that point a stretch of southern border desert country with thousands of empty boots laid out on it in a line stretching all the to the horizon. Perhaps that’s
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?"
"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.
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.
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)
"To govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."
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!)
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
Memo From Middle America| Mexican Foreign Ministry Meddling In Amnesty Debate—Where Is U.S. Government (And GOP)?
Over ten years ago, when I was teaching in Mexico (see The Education of a Gringo in Mexico), a sixth-grade student in my English class told me there was going to be an amnesty. Now where had he gotten that idea?
Not that it makes a great deal of difference—all recent Mexican presidents, regardless of party, have supported amnesty for Mexican illegals in the U.S.
Pena Nieto now has his team in place, including Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade Kuribrena. And the new ambassador to the United States, who presented his credentials on January 15th, is Eduardo Tomas Medina Mora Icaza. (Medina Mora was formerly Mexico’s ambassador to the UK during the farcical Top Gear imbroglio).
While still in Mexico, at a January 10th press conference, Medina-Mora cited “the presence of Mexicans in the United States of America, as much those of Mexican origin [i.e. U.S.-born] as those who were born in Mexico and reside there” and the 2010 U.S. Census—how many Hispanics are in the U.S., what percentage are of Mexican origin, the importance of the Hispanic vote etc. [Transcript, in Spanish |Google Translate]
A Mexican diplomat studying the U.S. census? Of course. After all, the Mexican foreign ministry was a “partner” with the U.S. Census Bureau in carrying out the 2010 U.S. Census. See 2010 Census Already Politically Correct—But Mexico Is Meddling Anyway.
At the same press conference, Medina-Mora was asked:
What role do you think that you will play in Washington over that debate [amnesty] and what is the Mexican government going to say to President Obama and the [U.S.] Congress over the possibility of reforms to the migratory policy in the United States?
That is a subject of the agenda and of the internal policy of the United States, and not a subject of the bilateral [Mexican and American] agenda…
Wow! That sounds like Medina-Mora respects our sovereignty and says he’s not going to meddle!
Yes—until you read the rest of the sentence:
…..we [Mexicans] nevertheless, have a very great interest, an inescapable responsibility to defend the interests of our fellow Mexicans and for asserting an argument that increases the opportunities for them.
In others words, yes, Mexico is meddling. And with its
Here on New York City’s Rockaway Peninsula, Ground Zero for Hurricane Sandy, my majority-Irish, overwhelmingly Catholic, white working/middle class community will hold its annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, one of the biggest in the country, on March 2. It will showcase many of the same pipe-and-drum marching bands that will perform in the even bigger parade down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue 14 days later.
And the Stix Family will be there, as usual.
When Michael Bloomberg, whom some neighbors call “the Mayor of Manhattan,” marches up front, no one will cheer. Some of my neighbors will boo him, and some will give him a one-finger salute. I will engage in my annual ritual of turning my back on him.
A colleague (Steve Sailer?) wrote that in supporting Giuliani, whites were creating an implicit racial community. They did that with Beame, Koch, Giuliani too, but their beneficiaries never repaid them. (Koch clashed publicly with blacks because he refused to suck up to them and they hated him with a passion, but he hired blacks like crazy.)
Conversely, although Bloomberg apparently calculates that the white working class has no place else to go
Question: How many times over the past four years have exploitative liberal journalists and Democratic leaders rushed to pin random acts of violence on the tea party, Republicans, Fox News and conservative talk radio?
The Fulford File | Rubio, Republicans, “Our New Spanish-Speaking Overlords,” And How To Fight Creeping Bilingualism
Conservatism Inc. is falling over itself to welcome “our new Spanish-speaking overlords”—to adapt the famous scene from The Simpsons (itself adapted from the 1977 movie Empire of the Ants). The Republican Congressional leadership has chosen newly-minted Florida Senator Marco Rubio to give the response to President Obama’s February 12 State Of The Union—half in Spanish.
Does this mean the United States is turning into Mexico?
No, it’s worse—it means the United States is turning into Canada.
Canada has a lot of experience with bilingualism, all of it bad.
I’ve noted before that the ludicrous Canadian custom of making speeches in both languages—saying everything twice, once in English and once in the minority language—is coming to America.
Well, the Canadians have invented an even worse absurdity: the speaker alternates between languages, leaving large parts of the audience unsure what he’s saying.
Thus Ottawa Citizen columnist Dan Gardner blogged acidly (April 19, 2010):
John Ralston Saul's public speech entitled: "Reinventing the language of citizenship/ inventer la langue de la citoyennete" will be presented in Canada's two official languages Please note the speech will alternate between French and English with no simultaneous translation.
John Ralston Saul is a member of the globalist elite, born in Ottawa, educated in Montreal and London. He writes books in English, but his website offers visitors the choice of English, French, or Spanish.
I can understand why the lecture might be given in French. Or in English. Or in either with translation. But both with no translation? Do that and you will ensure that more than nine out of ten people in the city [VDARE.com note: Vancouver, B. C.] in which you are giving the lecture will be unable to understand what you are saying. So what is this except a symbolic gesture of... Of what, exactly? Bilingual idealism? Contempt for the unilingual?
The explicitness of that notice is rare but neither the attitude nor the practice are, at least not in Ottawa. Years ago, after moving here, I was amazed at how, in Official Ottawa—i.e. the Ottawa of the federal government—it's perfectly acceptable for public speakers to switch back and forth between languages, without translation, even to the extent of setting up a joke in one language and delivering the punchline in another. This would be admirable in an ideal world in which all Canadians could laugh along. But in this world, this is a very effective way to shutting out the overwhelming majority of Canadians who are unilingual.
Funny. But in fact creeping bilingualism is not funny at all. It’s a serious threat to unilingual members of the majority language community a.k.a. English-speakers, in both Canada and the U.S.
Among other things, bilingualism ultimately means job preference for the minority language group—and years of language lessons for English-speakers who want those jobs.
Thus in Canada, many federal civil service jobs are reserved for people who speak both languages, which means, de facto¸ it is dominated by French speakers.
If Canada was to be a bilingual country with most power concentrated in Ottawa's federal government, in the nature of things it would be Francophones [VDARE.com note: CanSpeak for French-speakers, but really it’s a matter of blood] who would end up occupying most positions of authority in it. The inclination is always stronger for minorities to learn the language of a majority. Anglos weren't going to be bilingual in significant numbers. Francophones would be, and so rule the land.
[Unintended Consequences, by George Jonas,
In fairness to our nation's first black President, Harding's speeches weren't that bad. (You can actually listen to a small selection here.) He at least revivified an almost-forgotten word—no small achievement for an orator.
In the present concussed state of the Republican Party, even a Hardingian level of political rhetoric may be too much to hope for. Such at any rate was the impression I took away from Tuesday's speech at the American Enterprise Institute by Eric Cantor, a congressman from Virginia and current House majority leader.
I made the following random notes while watching the Real Clear Politics video of the speech. Numbers in parentheses refer to minutes and seconds into the video.
There is an introduction 1m50s long by Arthur Brooks, president of the AEI (and to the best of my knowledge, no relation to David Brooks.) Then comes Cantor's speech, 36m15s long, title "Making Life Work." The video closes with a brief Q&A period, 10m17s (eight questions).
After some preliminary routine flourishes—social mobility, the Wright Brothers, huddled masses, blah blah—we get to the first big segment, on education.
(11m00s) Since 1965, the federal government has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into improving schools, especially in low-income areas—over $15 billion last year. And frankly, the results have not matched the investment.
Still on education, at 11m17s we get the first of a parade of Lenny Skutniks. This first is one Joseph Kelley of Washington, D.C., whose son Rashawn was falling behind at school.
Joseph would try and sit in on classes in order to help Rashawn, but was met with hostility …
I should certainly hope so. Having taught inner-city kids myself, I can assure Mr. Cantor that no teacher could do his job with parents sitting in the classroom, even in a society less litigious than ours. If Mr. Kelley had shown up in mine, I'd have been yelling for the security guards.
When—I am asking rhetorically—when did it enter the heads of GOP panjandrums that being anti-schoolteacher is a good electoral strategy? I imagine that the train of thought pursued its sluggish course through their brains somewhat like this: The schools are lousy. Whom should we blame? The parents? Good grief, no! The school boards? They ARE parents. The students? Perish the thought! I know: Let's blame the teachers!
Even the premise is incorrect. When results are disaggregated by ethnicity, our schools do well in the international comparisons. We educate white kids as well as any white country, Hispanic kids as well as any Hispanic country, and so on. True, we have a fair proportion of ineducables, but so does everyone else. Our current approach to the ineducables—make them take Algebra!—is borderline insane, but you won't hear that from Cantor, only feelgood claptrap about "opportunity."
… and even had to obtain a court order so Rashawn could have a tutor.
Really? As detailed in Bob Weissberg's book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools, pp. 208-210), there is a huge array of affordable non-school options—online tutoring, "cram academies" and the like—even in the poorest neighborhoods. Some were made free to students from failing schools under the original No Child Left Behind Act. Weissberg:
City after city reported a nearly identical experience: huge numbers of lagging students were offered a free tutoring option, often in the school they already attend, but only about 10 percent signed up, and even then, most dropped out after a few sessions.
(12m00s) Violence was so prevalent in Rashawn's schools
Liberals in the Main Stream Media have been up in arms over an official White House petition to
STOP WHITE GENOCIDE: Halt MASSIVE third world immigration and FORCED assimilation in White countries!
The petition states
Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY? White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to "assimilate," i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence…Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It's anti-white!
Followers of the Dissident Right will likely recognize this text. It frequently appears in the comment threads of race-related news articles and YouTube videos.
But it’s news to many on the Left. They are utterly outraged that anyone would think such thoughts:
- Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed tweeted on the petition with the words: “Is this the most racist White House petition ever created?”
- Jonathan Capehart, a black Washington Post columnist, answered: “I would have to answer yes. Yes, it probably is.”
Capehart was particularly upset that some of the signers come from “unlikely places such as New York City, New Haven, Conn., Silver Spring, Md., and Berkeley, Calif.” A petition to ‘stop white genocide’?, January 18, 2012].
Capehart even appeared on MSNBC to express his outrage that 405 people had signed the petition— “not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things” but “way too many” for such unacceptable thoughts. [Conspiracy theories a way of life for conservatives, January 18, 2013]
Host Karen Finney (who is considered, but doesn’t look, African-American, see picture RIGHT) snarked that Rush Limbaugh probably had the same thoughts. And black commentator Touré, appearing on the same show, suggested that the entire GOP base agreed.
Unlike Capehart, I cannot manage to get outraged that four hundred people (or currently, almost 950 people) are willing to sign their name on the petition.
The Westboro Baptist Church is a fringe church led by Fred Phelps. Phelps began his political activism as a left-wing civil rights attorney. Among his many cases, he filed a class action lawsuit to compel forced busing, as well as forced integration of the American Legion. [As a lawyer, Phelps was good in court, By Joe Taschler and Steve Fry, Topeka The Capital-Journal, August 3, 1994]
Fox News has referred to the Westboro Baptist Church as a “left wing,” but did it not mention any of Phelps’ civil rights activism, leading the fashionista Leftists at Gawker to mock its claim. [Fox News Refers to the Westboro Baptist Church as a ‘Left-Wing Cult’, by Neetzan Zimmerman, December 26, 2012] Fox could have made a much stronger case had it mentioned Phelps’ past legal work—but that would involve an un-neoconservative concession that civil rights litigation is “left wing.”
Phelps and the Church gained fame in the 1990s when he began protesting “Gay Pride” events with signs emblazoned “God Hates Fags.” Eager for more and more attention,
Peter takes the position that we’ve been here before, and the Bad Guys lost. He observes that compensation offers about the Anchor Baby Loophole and Rand Paul’s references to an immigration moratorium might be interesting, but that in the end a Third Party will probably be needed.
National Data | January Jobs: Immigrants Displace Natives at a Record Clip—And That’s Even Before Amnesty!
It’s a sick labor market, with immigrants are already displacing Americans, into which our bipartisan political elite is inexplicably planning to amnesty 12-20 million illegal aliens and increase legal immigration, the January jobs report revealed last Friday
The unemployment rate ticked up to 7.9 percent in January. It has made no progress since September 2012 and is still about where it was when President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009.
American employers added 157,000 jobs in January, compared with a revised 196,000 jobs the previous month. For perspective (which you never see supplied by the Main Stream Media or, for that matter, by Establishment economists) about 90,000 legal immigrants arrive each month. Or about 1.062 million per year: see the DHS’s report U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2011.
(But the economy did add one-third of a million more jobs in 2012 than previously estimated, with a large chunk coming in the final months of the year).
This generally unimpressive assessment is based on the survey of employer payrolls. But the “other” employment survey, of households, finds a mere 17,000 jobs were created in January. (For a discussion of the differences between the Employer and Household surveys, click here).
The Household Survey reports immigrant and native-born employment. In January, there was record immigrant displacement of American workers:
- Total Household survey employment rose 17,000 (+0.01 percent)
- Foreign-born employment increased by 112,000 (+0.48 percent)
- Native-born employment fell by 95,000 (-0.08 percent)
Note that the January numbers also reflect revised population benchmarks.
Unfortunately no details are provided on how this change allocates among immigrants and native-born. The Labor Department lamely notes: “In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates for December 2012 and earlier months.”
So January 2013 job growth is based on updated population figures for January and older unrevised population figures for December 2012—literally comparing apples to oranges. In my experience, this is not “usual practice” for government statisticians. Could this asymmetry understate native-born worker displacement?
We do not know.
But we do know that data published over the course of Barack Obama’s first term show foreign-born workers relentlessly gained jobs, while native-born Americans lost them.
From January 2009 to January 2013:
- Total household survey employment rose 1.101 million (+0.77 percent)
- Foreign-born employment increased by 1.721 million (+7.95 percent)
- Native-born employment fell by 620,000 (-0.51 percent)
Month-to-month changes in native and immigrant employment in Mr. Obama’s first term are sketched in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI):
The blue line tracks native job growth, the pink line immigrant job growth, while the yellow line is the ratio of immigrant to native job growth, which we call the New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI).
American worker displacement is also confirmed by comparing the published figures for December 2012 and December 2011:
Employment Status by Nativity,
Jan. 2012 to Jan. 2013
(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally
Contrary to what we’re incessantly told by the Main Stream Media, it’s not in the least surprising that Senators Jeff Flake (R.-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R.-SC), John McCain, (R.-AZ), and Marco Rubio (R.-FL), became the Republican half of the amnesty-promoting “Gang of 8.” Rubio was only elected in 2010, but his record on immigration has long been terrible, as I noted when expressing relief that he Mitt Romney did not pick him for VP. The others have been among the most vocal supporters of amnesty in Congress. As Tom Tancredo recently pointed out in Townhall.com:
Indeed, of the 45 Republicans Senators, Flake, Graham and McCain, are the only ones with F Grades. It is fair to say, that these three men have the worst voting on amnesty in the entire US Senate. (Two other new Republicans, Rob Portman and Dan Coats, have F- grades, but that’s based on their votes for small amnesties in the House of Representatives more than a decade ago—both were out of federal politics during the Bush Amnesty Wars.)
What is particularly troubling about this: all of these RINOs faced primary challengers who ran as immigration patriots. Each time, they were able to pretend that they supported border security—and won.
- Jeff Flake
While Flake was better known to conservatives for his fiscal conservatism, he had always been one of the leading supporters of amnesty in the House of Representatives. He co-sponsored the House
Sunday’s Super Bowl game between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers is an anticlimactic finale to the National Football League (NFL) season—two minor teams with no iconic players. But it does have one interesting subplot: it’s the first time brothers are the head coaches of the respective teams—Jim Harbaugh for the 49ers and John Harbaugh for the Ravens.
Both are white, and, in a business where a head coach has all the job security of a Kamikaze pilot, they rose to the top on merit. However, it is increasingly clear that will soon be unacceptable in Obama’s America,
The reason? There were eight vacant NFL head-coaching positions after the 2012 season ended and every one of the positions went to a white man. That is just intolerable in 2013, when we have all been conditioned to believe that, wherever a white male is getting a job, some form of “racism” is being practiced.
(Ironically, even President Barack Obama has been embroiled in this controversy—for daring to hire white men for his Cabinet![America's first black president slammed for white male Cabinet, MSN, January 11, 2013] And he has duly groveled: Obama urges patience to critics of white male nominees, CNN, January 14, 2013.
After all, it’s 2013—hiring white males is so passé!
Remember, the NFL already has the infamous Rooney Rule in place, mandating that a black candidate must be interviewed for every head coach opening.
The numbers themselves do not look good. For any proponent of the NFL's Rooney Rule and any advocate of open-minded hiring, it was a shutout.
Eight coaches and seven general managers lost their jobs following the 2012 NFL season. None of those posts was filled by a person of color.
That has led Robert Gulliver, the NFL's executive vice president of human resources, to call it "disappointing."
But was it a failure of the Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate for each coach or GM opening?
Pittsburgh Steelers chairman Dan Rooney, namesake of the decade-old rule, views it differently. He would advocate for tinkering with the rule he championed in 2003.
"Let me say this: In all eight cases, we have very excellent compliance," Rooney told NFL.com and NFL Network in an exclusive interview. "Every team followed procedures, interviewed minority candidates. From that standpoint, we were pleased. As far as, now people saying they didn't get the job. Maybe this year, there weren't the candidates they thought there would be so they would get the jobs. On the other hand, it's up to the coach, the candidate, to show the owner that they're capable of doing the job. That's a big thing. Evidently, they weren't able to do that this year."
Dan Rooney: The Rooney Rule 'workable,' can be tweaked, NFL.com, 1-20-13 [Links in original]
Rapoport is a white male sports journalist, bemoaning the lack of black male head coaches in the NFL for NFL.com. It’s like reading Pravda from the old Soviet Union. Rapoport has to choose between the party line and the unemployment line.
But it gets worse. An expansion of the Rooney Rule is in preparation, to include the positions of offensive and defensive coordinator. That will be yet another road block in the career of white NFL coaches:
The Rooney Rule, which requires NFL franchises to interview at least one minority candidate for head-coaching jobs, is a good thing. But it's not working. However, CBS Sports NFL Insider Jason La Canfora reports the Rooney Rule will probably undergo changes in 2013, with the rule likely being expanded to include coordinator and assistant head-coaching positions.
League sources tell La Canfora there is strong support for Rooney Rule expansion
Another battle over amnesty is about to be joined. Informed members of the historic American nation have to mount another bitter grassroots struggle against our political, media, corporate and religious elite.
The Evangelical Immigration Table is staging a major PR campaign to bamboozle evangelicals into supporting amnesty as their Christian duty.
The group has released a video (entitled “I Was a Stranger”) in which a number of the organization’s leaders recite the words of Christ in Matthew 25:31-46. It’s the famous Sheep and the Goats discourse, wherein Christ exhorts his followers to help “one of the least of these brothers of mine”, the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the one needing clothes, sick or in prison. The video emphasizes the part about “I was a stranger and you invited me in”.
What they're trying to do here is to guilt trip evangelicals into thinking that if they don't support amnesty, they are disobeying Christ. The passage in question, however, is about voluntary good works, not about supporting a mass amnesty for foreign lawbreakers.
These evangelical Open Borders boosters are distorting the words of Christ in order to support their agenda, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
But how representative of evangelical opinion is the Evangelical Immigration Table ?
You have to read between the lines on the Main Stream Media coverage.
For example, look at one recent headline: Evangelicals Reign In Conservatives On Immigration Reform, Favoring Amnesty Over Enforcement. By Trisha Marczak, Mint Press News, January 16, 2013.
Now, besides the fact that “reign” should be spelled “rein”, that might lead you to believe that all or most “evangelicals” are supporting amnesty.
Well, I’m an evangelical Christian. I sure know that I don’t support amnesty—nor do I think that immigration enforcement and the nation-state are incompatible with Christianity. And I know I’m not alone in that.
In fact, it’s doubtful that any group—certainly not the Evangelical Immigration Table—could speak with authority for all evangelicals. That’s because, notwithstanding the left-wing stereotype of evangelicals as a monolithic movement, American evangelicalism is actually rather fractious.
The American evangelical world is one of endlessly multiplying and dividing denominations, non-denominations, independent churches and ministries. Many evangelicals, when they don't agree with something in their congregation, will often just quit and join another—or even start another church!
Moreover, while most American evangelicals could probably be classified as basically right-leaning, many are apolitical and some belong to the Evangelical Left.
On the question of immigration, I believe a 2009 poll is still valid: most evangelicals are immigration patriots. The poll showed that, when compared to mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, evangelicals had the highest percentage of respondents who believe that (1) the quantity of immigrants, illegal and legal, is too high; (2) illegal immigration is caused by lack of enforcement, (3) we have enough Americans who can do our labor, (4) amnesty for illegals is not the answer, (4) attrition through enforcement is a good strategy, and (5) enforcing the law is better than amnesty. [Religious Leaders vs. Members: An Examination of Contrasting Views on Immigration, Steven S. Camarota, CIS, December 2009].
Roy Beck of Numbers USA has estimated that one-third of his group’s members are evangelicals.
Which means that the Evangelical Immigration Table does not speak for most American evangelicals. Even its own website, at the bottom of the long list of evangelical leaders and their organizations who support amnesty, posts this disclaimer:
Titles and institutions are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute endorsements by those institutions.
This naturally leads to the question: who is really running the Evangelical Immigration Table?
Well, at the top of the aforementioned list appear the names of the nine principal leaders—I’ll call them The Big Nine. Let’s look at the Big Nine and consider what sorts of motivation these people might have. Here are the names:
- Leith Anderson,[Twitter] President, National Association of Evangelicals
- Stephan Bauman, [email him]President and CEO, World Relief
- David Beckmann, [Email him]President, Bread for the World
- Noel Castellanos, [Email him]CEO, Christian Community Development Association
- Luis Cortes, [Email him]President, Esperanza
- Richard Land, [email him]President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
- Samuel Rodriguez,[Twitter] President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
- Gabriel Salguero, [Email him] President, National Latino Evangelical Coalition
- Jim Wallis, [Email him]President and CEO, Sojourners
Note that four of the Big Nine—Noel Castellanos, Luis Cortes, Gabriel Salguero and Samuel Rodriguez—are Hispanics.
National Review Institute Summit: Conservatism Inc. Stunned—But Not Stunned Enough To Consider Patriotic Immigration Reform
The first stage in the grieving process is denial. That was the central message of the recent National Review Institute's Summit on the “Future of Conservatism.”
Ostensibly this was a meeting to discuss how Conservatism Inc.—the parasitical congerie of lobbyists, consultants, foundation executives, PR types pundits, etc. that exploits the votes of the historic American nation to advance a Big Business agenda—has once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory .
But it was actually an exercise in telling attendees what they wanted to hear. The Main Stream Media, which extensively covered the conference (see Dave Weigel, Jonathon Chait, and Jonathan Krohn ) was, alas, quite right to note that there wasn't much actual soul searching—except for a near-consensus (among the speakers) on the need to pass amnesty for illegal aliens.
The overwhelmingly white crowd was assured that demographics is not necessarily destiny and that the Republican Party can eventually win over minority voters with better “messaging.” There was no discussion of the GOP’s chronic failure to mobilize its white base—and, of course, no discussion of any alternative to Likudnik war-mongering (which is particularly odd, given the increasing strength of libertarian ideologues in the GOP. For all intents and purposes, it’s still 2003 when it comes to foreign policy for National Review.)
Thus Friday's night star attraction was neoconservative political columnist (and born-again amnesty supporter) Charles Krauthammer. He received a rock star welcome and the applause only built as he confirmed what the audience already believed: “I don't believe in the demographic theories,” Krauthammer assured the throng.
Furthermore, Krauthammer claims to believe that Hispanics are “natural conservatives”—aside from immigration. He actually said: “I think that's one community, if we were running ideologically, we'd win.”
And Krauthammer even asserts that the same old Republican playbook that Conservatism Inc. has been using for 30 years will still work: he claimed that as long as Republicans “stay the conservative party... they will succeed. The reason is we are a center-right country.”
This largely set the Summit’s tone. Conservatives—both the Conservatism Inc. apparatchiks and the grassroots—know they are in trouble. Both were represented at the summit. The professional activists were from the vast array of economic conservative groups from inside in the Beltway—many of whom have long championed championing amnesty and mass immigration. Many of the grassroots attendees had come from out of town for the annual March for Life. They wore sweatshirts and backpacks with the names of various Catholic universities.
But confronted with the “Emerging Democratic Majority,” Conservatism Inc. has announced that the proper response is surrender. Having disregarded (and punished) prophets like Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and Peter Brimelow—whose prescient 1997 NR cover story, Electing A New People, co-authored with Ed Rubenstein, was absolutely not mentioned—Conservatism Inc. is now smoothly transitioning from claiming