Recent News

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

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.

The hatred is well-earned. Bloomberg started it, by waging war on us in a million different ways.

Keep in mind that Bloomberg, like the previous three white mayors—Beame, Koch, and Giuliani—owes his power very largely to white working/middle-class communities like ours.

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

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.

(It’s a pattern—Rubio gave the GOP response to the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision partly in Spanish, and spoke in Spanish, briefly, at the Republican Convention).

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.

Gardner asked

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.

George Jonas, a Hungarian immigrant to Canada, has described the dynamic:

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,

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].

They're everywhere!

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.

What does concern me, however, is that over 330,000 people—more than any other cause—have signed another White House petition to “legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a Hate Group.” 

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,

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:

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.

Here’s what NFL.com writer Ian Rapoport (Message him on Twitter) wrote about the scandal:

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