Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
[See also “It Was Fun”—Robert K. Tanenbaum vs. The Central Park Five, 25 Years Later, and Peter Brimelow's 1989 London Times reaction Beasts In The Park]
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is demanding a quick settlement of the lawsuit brought by the five men convicted of one of the most sickening crimes in the city's history: the attack on the Central Park jogger in 1989.
The plaintiffs are demanding $50 million apiece—for going to prison for a rape that they committed, as detailed in Chapter 13 of "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Destroying America." Abner Louima got $5.8 million for a shockingly brutal police assault on him, and he was just an innocent bystander.
The "Central Park Five," as PBS documentarian Ken Burns has dubbed them, aren't exactly Emmett Till (as Burns would have you believe). Even if they were innocent of the Central Park rape, which they aren't, the reason they were originally arrested was that they were rampaging through the park, assaulting people.
Even after they began denying the rape, the defendants continued to admit committing these other attacks. How'd you like to be one of the people badly beaten in the park that night watching your tax dollars go to pay your assailants millions of dollars?
All those convictions—on the rape as well as the assaults—have been vacated because an aging district attorney wanted a glowing obituary in The New York Times.
In 2002, the ancient Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney, issued a report recommending that the convictions in the Central Park rape case be vacated. Justice Charles Tejada (Fordham Law 2009 Hispanic Heritage Award winner!) granted his request.
The D.A.'s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape—the statute of limitations
The appalling Jeb Bush is continuing his campaign to destroy the historic American nation, demanding that corporations receive more “H1-B visas for the high tech industry.” [Jeb Bush pushes amnesty, more high-tech visas at education conference, by Tony Lee, Breitbart, April 22, 2014] His fellow propagandists for the Slave Power are already advancing the perfect argument to justify it—national security is now just another job that Americans won’t do.
At any other time and in any other country, the idea that weapons research should be outsourced to foreigners would be the definition of treason. But America is no longer a nation, and so we get corporate lobbyist Gary Shapiro [email him] of the Consumer Electronics Association in the Washington Post lecturing Americans on why they need to do more to safeguard the defense industry’s taxpayer guaranteed profits. Shapiro’s spiel was less an Op-Ed than a paid corporate advertisement—but with today’s Main Stream Media, who can tell the difference?
Encouraging bright minds to stay in the United States after graduation, grow businesses and create jobs is critical to secure our country’s position as a high-tech hub and global leader in innovation. It’s also important to our national security.
…Many of the tools we need to keep our country safe are born of the minds of tech innovators. But political leaders appear to have given little thought to the national security ramifications of inaction on this issue. It’s time for our politicians to drop their protectionist rhetoric and allow those who come to the United States to study and earn graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields to stay, grow businesses and create.
Our nation’s defense capabilities are increasingly dependent on the latest advances in science and technology. Too often we take for granted that the United States has the world’s most sophisticated communications, weaponry and aerospace technology and equipment. When we lose STEM students, we lose access to their future innovations. Sending top STEM talent away based on outdated immigration laws may actually be putting us in danger.
[How Immigration Reform Could Boost Our National Defense, March 21, 2014]
Needless to say, the blessings of diversity seem not to have touched the higher ranks of the Consumer Electronics Association. The Executive Board has five white men and two white women. (The two women are the Treasurer and Secretary.) And if there is one place where “protectionism” should have a place, it is in discussions of national security.
But what is more disturbing is how Shapiro seemingly ignored any downsides to blithely entrusting military technology to foreigners. The United States is already facing a crisis of Chinese military and corporate espionage. [ Confidential report lists U.S. weapons system designs compromised by Chinese cyberspies, by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, May 27, 2013] And of course, “top STEM talent” studying in America constitute a big part of this effort.
Shapiro also made claims that simply aren’t true. For example, he said:
… [L]ast June the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation by a vote of 68-32. The legislation included provisions allowing immigrants with advanced STEM degrees to become U.S. citizens. Yet the legislation now languishes in the House. Republicans are concerned about leaving enforcement of overall immigration legislation to a president they feel selectively enforces laws. More, they fear Tea Party retribution
So it’s official: the GOP donor class will nominate Jeb Bush for president in 2016. Robert Shrum says so! [Why the GOP Needs a Return to the Bush Leagues, Daily Beast, April 21, 2014]. Who can the GOP trust better than a veteran Democratic campaign consultant?
But in fact, Jeb Bush will be a toxic asset by the time the primary season begins, because of his two loves: Amnesty and Crony Capitalism—the latter amply illustrated by yesterday’s New York Times hit piece Jeb Bush’s Rush to Make Money May Be Hurdle [by Michael Barbaro, April 20, 2014].
Amnesty is already a problem for Bush after he claimed that illegal immigration is “an act of love.” [Jeb Bush: Crossing the Border Illegally an 'Act of Love', Breitbart TV, April 6, 2014]. It was reportedly the reason his name was booed at the recent New Hampshire Freedom Summit [Jeb Bush Was Public Enemy No. 1 At One Of The Year's Biggest Conservative Gatherings, by Brett Logiurato, Business Insider, April 14, 2014].
But Bush also used the word “love” in a much more significant part of his trashy speech, when he made this stunning admission:
The great number of people who come to this country come because they have no opportunities in other places. They may love their country, but they come here because they want to provide for their families. And they can make a contribution to our country if we actually organized ourselves in a better way.
Emphasis added. It was this second mention of “love” that should forever brand Jeb Bush as a traitor. Even though he admits that immigrants are devoted to a different country, he still wants them here in large numbers.
Does he have a national death wish? Or is he simply an idiot?
American patriots should be grateful that Jeb Bush has provided proof of what the multiculti Republicans secretly understand: many of today’s immigrants are committed to their home nations, not to the United States. Some of them can’t even resist their disloyalty during the Olympics.
“American” Olympian Leo Manzano celebrating his win for…which country again?
Amnesty shills like Jeb Bush and John McCain claim that Hispanics are
Ray Kelly, former New York Police Commissioner, told ABC’s “This Week” today that he’s worried about a “copycat” bombing at the Boston Marathon on Monday (April 21) but that the Massachusetts authorities police state-style clampdown is “everything they can reasonably do.”[Ray Kelly worries about Boston Marathon 'copycat' attack, by Jennifer Epstein, POLITICO, April 20, 2014.] That, of course, is because neither Kelly nor anyone else in the Ruling Class wants to mention the obvious: the Boston Bombing was yet another case of Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome—jihad department—and the ultimate answer is an immigration cut-off
Significantly, the Main Stream Media has found a way around the immigration dimension of Islamic terror in America: calling it “homegrown terrorism.” This term is now regularly used to describe any Muslim killer wanna-be who didn’t come directly from Jihadistan with orders from a recognized terror group to blow up infidels. The radicalization process implied by the MSM is vague, but somehow young people mysteriously absorb Islamist ideology in this country—so America is at fault, not immigrants!
A Google search in mid-April for Tsarnaev Homegrown Terror got 1.2 million results even though the Boston Bombers were not “homegrown” in any sense of the word, but were immigrants. The Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar entered the United States in 2002 as tourists and then successfully claimed asylum. Tamerlan, born in 1986, followed a year later on his own at age 16 when his character was largely formed by living as an ethnic Chechen with his Muslim family in the Caucasus region. In 2012 Tamerlan traveled to Dagestan and remained for six months in an area known for a violent Islamic insurgency. But a spelling error caused the government to miss his return to the US, even though the Russians warned that he was associated with jihadists. [US missed Russia’s Tsarnaev warning due to misspelling, By Reuters, March 26, 2014]
In the real world, almost nobody falls into Islam from reading about it on the internet. The perps are mostly immigrants, first or second generation, who are immersed in the culture of Islam vs. infidels. Even in the case of converts, the new Muslims have responded to a belief system brought to this country by immigrants.
But the MSM’s “homegrown” strategy has another important consequence: it makes Americans more accepting of intrusive security, as memory fades that such extreme measures were not always the norm.
And this year’s Boston Marathon security is really extreme. Unlike the New York City Marathon, which occurs within the boroughs of the city, the Boston Marathon is run through eight separate municipalities, requiring a much more elaborate regional effort, involving 3,500 police officers and National Guard members including undercover agents. [Security plan 'significantly enhanced' by Jack McCluskey, ESPN, April 16, 2014]
The runners themselves now have many restrictions, according to the Boston Athletic Association. Prohibited items include: Backpacks, glass containers, any container capable of carrying more than 1 liter of liquid, strollers, suitcases & rolling bags, personal hydration system products (such as CamelBak®, Thor®, etc), weight vests or any sort of vest with pockets, costumes covering the face or any non-form fitting bulky outfits extending beyond the perimeter of the body, props (including sporting equipment and military and fire/gear and signs or flags larger than 11 inches x 17 inches), any item larger than 5 inches x 15 inches x 5 inches.
Strollers and backpacks will be permitted for spectators, but anyone who looks sketchy will be questioned.
Professional sports make especially appealing targets for Allah’s gangsters because of the thousands of potential victims plus MSM coverage. As a result, pro baseball and football games are now security zones where spectators are frisked to check for bombs, guns or poison. The bigger the event, the worse the threat, and the more invasive the security.
The 2014 Super Bowl, played in MetLife Stadium near New York City, required an army of police to protect the arena. One hundred law enforcement agencies worked for two years to develop a comprehensive security plan for the game. [Plan for Super Bowl safety covers stadium, entire region By Karen Sudol, The Record, January 26, 2014] Four thousand private and government officers were assigned to the big game. [Protection Package: 4,000 Security Officers To Work Super Bowl XLVIII, CBS, January 15, 2014] The arena was temporarily a 10-mile no-fly zone enforced by Blackhawk helicopters. Bomb-sniffing dogs checked the entire place and fans had to take special buses and trains to the game rather than drive. [Super Bowl 2014 transit: Bus riders avoid mob scene that train riders faced, by Joseph R. Vena, The Jersey Journal, February 02, 2014] Spectators were very limited in what they could carry—only tiny bags or clear plastic freezer bags. Naturally, all fans were physically screened upon entrance in airport-style security.
Co-host Eric Bolling commented on the April 15 segment of Fox News’s The Five, that it took him (!) an hour and a half to get through Super Bowl security—with a special pass (!!). Regular ticket holders took twice as long.
Another notable example of targeted sports: the 2012 London Summer Olympics. The games turned the city into an armed camp, including military choppers with snipers ready to fly and surface-to-air missiles mounted on neighborhood rooftops.[ London rooftops to carry missiles during Olympic Games, by Robert Booth, theguardian.com, April 29, 2012] The two-week event cost $2 billion for security, largely to protect athletes and spectators from Britain’s famously unfriendly Muslims. [London 2012 Olympics a Terror Target , By Eric Stakelback, CBN.com, July 19, 2012]
Note that nothing like these extreme protective measures were needed for London’s 1948 Games. At that time, the city was un-Islamic and the athletic competition could be freely enjoyed as an element of Western civilization that dates back to ancient Greece. For a nostalgic reminder of a vanished time when sports were free and easy, check out the Daily Mail’s photo-filled article: The 1948 Games: Fascinating images of the last time London hosted the Olympics. . . on a budget of just £70,000. [by Tim Goodenough, July 21, 2012]
The Olympic torch is presented at the 1948 Summer Olympic Games at Wembley Stadium in London
One missing fact from the security reports: the dollar expense.
The graphic above is from WarOnEaster.org, a website set up by atheist film director Brian Flemming in 2008, to promote a campaign to slip copies of his 2005 documentary, The God Who Wasn't There, into pews and under church doors during the Easter time.
Flemming had purchased 666 copies of his own movie for what might well be described as an ideological/promotional giveaway.
Thus began the "War on Easter"—with its own website, waroneaster.org.The new site became a hub for a campaign in which Flemming recruited believers in the film to distribute copies of the DVD to churches over the upcoming Easter holiday, Handing them to pastors? No, not exactly, Those recruited were intended to place the film surreptitiously—in pew racks, in restrooms, in bushes, by the door, or in any place where it might later be found with a little effort. Plastic Easter eggs, too, were used for distribution to the younger set; though these would contain messages such as, “Jesus is no more real than the Easter Bunny." Once these trinkets were placed. those recruited could return to the website and tell the story of how they proudly placed Flemming's markers. I found this story particularly poignant:
We got an odd look from a police officer when we were sitting across the street from a playground in an old brown Chevy Celebrity with a bunch of easter eggs, flyers, and a lot of liquor in the back seat. [Easter is lower cased in the original, of course.]
So that’s something to think about when you hear, as you do at this time of year, that there’s “No War On Easter”, or “conservatives have now started a War on Easter.” Here’s the latest versions:
- Fox News Kicks Off Its War On Easter Hatefest
News Hounds-Apr 8, 2014
- O'Reilly's Grievance Industry - War On Easter Edition
News Hounds-Apr 18, 2014
- Quit Trying to Make the 'War on Easter' Happen
Jezebel- Apr 19, 2014
But if you want to know about the basic Cultural Marxist War On Easter, all you need to do is search Google News for “Spring Bunny” (673 results) or “Spring Egg” (1270 results ). The Spring Bunny is what was known to everyone, all my life, until just the other day as the Easter Bunny,
New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio is all set to pay as much as $300 million to the so-called Central Park Five (and, of course, their lawyers). [Central Park Case Settlement Could Cost City Millions, By Sean Gardiner, WSJ, March 23, 2014] This group of four black and one Hispanic man admitted to and were convicted of beating and sexually abusing/ raping white investment banker Trisha Meili 25 years ago today (April 19, 1989). They were also convicted of separate violent crimes against parkgoers John Loughlin and David Lewis. Their names: Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana and Korey/Kharey Wise.(For a contemporary report, see Beasts In The Park, By Peter Brimelow , The Times (London), April 29, 1989.)
The Central Park 5 is a classic case of American Main Stream Media Reverse Reporting, up there with Sally Hemings, Hurricane Katrina, and, perhaps, Joe McCarthy and Clarence Thomas. In each case, the truth was initially widely known, but crooked “journalists” and “scholars” then lied, again and again, until the lies replaced the truth as the conventional wisdom. (The Duke Rape Hoax saga is similar but differs in that the lie was initially conventional wisdom and then refuted, but now is apparently climbing out of its coffin anyway.)
Immediately after the Jogger defendants had confessed/admitted to the attack, their black supremacist supporters began weaving racial fairy tales—such as that Trisha Meili either had been attacked by her boyfriend or somehow faked the attack altogether; and the confessed attackers were really the victims of a vast racist, white conspiracy to hang the crimes on innocent blacks, the new “Scottsboro Boys” whose confessions had been “coerced.” (The real Scottsboro Boys never confessed to anything.) She is known to blacks and Hispanics as “Patricia Meili,” although she actually went by “Trisha,” because New York’s black newspapers made a point of constantly publishing her legal name.
The confessed/admitted Jogger attackers duly recanted. But between July and December 1990, all five were convicted in split trials marked by outrageous conduct by the attackers’ supporters and relatives.
Their attorneys commented that the defendants had made so many self-incriminating statements that a successful defense was impossible:
Afterward, Mr. Richardson's lawyer, Howard Diller, said he was "shattered."
"They convicted themselves with their own statements," he said. "We could not overcome them."
Colin Moore, the lawyer for Mr. Wise, said his client's "vivid" videotaped statement "proved to be too difficult to overcome."
[2 Teen-Agers Are Convicted in Park Jogger Trial by Ronald Sullivan, New York Times, December 12, 1990.]
The only reason the Central Park 5 case is now being questioned: In November, 2001, after the statute of limitations had passed, a delusional, psychopathic, convicted serial rapist and murderer, Matias Reyes, asserted that he had committed the attack on Trisha Meili all by himself. DNA testing confirmed that he had indeed raped Meili.
But prosecutors had always said one assailant had not been caught.
The one real question in the world today: whether those rights of man that we hold so dear—of certain men, that is—can be preserved at the expense of others. I’ll let you think that one over …
That is the President of France, speaking to ambassadors from other Western nations as his own is being overwhelmed by a flood of illegal immigrants from the Third World.
It is of course fiction, so far at any rate. To be precise, it is Jean Raspail’s 1973 novel The Camp of The Saints, Chapter 34.
I remember thinking when I read Raspail’s book a dozen or so years ago that he had missed the mark—forgivably enough, I suppose, for a writer in the early 1970s (see below). Raspail’s poor Third Worlders coming ashore in Europe are from subcontinental Asia. Wouldn’t they, in the 21st century, more likely be black Africans, I thought?
I thought correctly. India is currently stable and improving. Right now they are having an election—a fair and orderly one by Third World standards. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are politically wobbly but inching forward. The situation in Pakistan remains perpetually “desperate but not serious.”
Meanwhile there are indeed hordes of Third Worlders trying to get into Europe, but they are mostly Africans. The European territories near to Africa—or, in the case of Ceuta and Melilla, tiny Spanish enclaves on the Moroccan coast, actually in Africa—are being besieged by would-be illegal immigrants.
Needless to say, all the Main Stream Media stories about these Mediterranean illegals take a sympathetic line. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece about Ceuta and Melilla, whose boundary fences are Europe’s only land borders with Africa, we read that:
Raymond Persie twisted his ankle when he hit the ground [after scaling a fence into Melilla] and ended up in the custody of Spanish police. Yet those stumbles didn’t cripple his dream of working in Europe and sending money home to his father and younger brother.
[African Migrants Stream to Spanish Enclaves, by David Román, Wall Street Journal, April 3,2014.]
Is there some sort of universal style rule taught in journo schools that any story about illegal immigration must include the word “dream” at least once?
The subtitle to the Wall Street Journal piece is: “Thousands Fleeing War and Poverty Storm Madrid’s Territories in Morocco, as EU Moves to Fix System.”
The system that needs “fixing” is presumably the system of orderly immigration into the EU—just as, in current U.S. elite-speak, our own system of orderly immigration, as defined by laws enacted by the people’s representatives in Congress duly assembled, needs “reform” rather than firm, efficient enforcement.
There is in fact very little in the WSJ piece about EU efforts. The principal mention of the EU is:
Last month at least 15 West Africans who sought to avoid climbing the barriers drowned while trying to swim to Ceuta, as members of the Guardia Civil fired rubber bullets into the water—a tactic sharply criticized by EU officials and Spanish opposition leaders.
Nor does the WSJ explain why we should sympathize
Recuperating from the April 15 income tax deadline? Soothe yourself with this: the Main Stream Media devoted some deserved attention this tax season to the huge tax refund fraud problem—but, as usual, failed to get specific about a key factor: illegal aliens. That’s because the MSM’s allies, the Democrats in government, are gaining enormously from keeping the illegal alien-magnet switch on for as long as possible.
Thus AP recently reported on the “$4 billion” lost every year due to “fraudulent tax refunds.” [$4 billion: Bogus tax refunds a growing problem, By Eric Tucker, USA Today, April 10, 2014] The story coincided with a recent video produced by the Department of Justice wherein Attorney General Holder reminds us to not worry, they’re on the case. [Attorney General Holder Calls Tax Refund Fraud and Identity Theft a "Rising Threat", April 7, 2014]
The AP report isn’t specific about what types of “fraudulent tax refunds” are in issue, but $4 billion is definitely a low number compared to the total problem.
The Earned Income Tax Credit alone costs taxpayers a whopping $12-$14 billion in fraudulent payments every year. [$13.6 billion lost in bogus Earned Income Tax Credit claims last year, by: John Hayward, Human Events, October 22, 2013]
This is especially troubling considering the program pays out in total $56 billion per year—meaning its average “improper payments rate,” as reported by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (PDF) is around 25 per cent. In contrast, Medicaid fraud, which is very well publicized and has its own federal task force, hovers at around 8-10 per cent a year.
More troubling still: the EITC is the government’s fastest growing entitlement program. Since its start in 1980 the program’s grown 44-fold.[ Defrauding the American Taxpayer, By Edwin S. Rubenstein, The Social Contract, March 20,2013] Compare this to the 8.5x increase in total entitlement spending in the same period.
The credit, which pays out up to $5,800 to a family of three,
As those of you who follow my hate mail know, I am opposed to running untested candidates against perfectly good incumbent Republican senators this election cycle. It will be a long time before Republicans have as good a year as this to win a Senate majority.
Unfortunately, we have idiots doing the idiot thing, pretending to be "tea partiers," while challenging sitting Republican senators over fairly minor ideological differences.
Anyone opposing an incumbent Republican for any reason other than amnesty is a fraud or an idiot. Right now, immigration and Obamacare are the only things that matter. Since every Republican voted against Obamacare, that leaves only immigration.
Suppose the Senate had passed a bill that would cut Texas out of the Union? Would that get your attention, fake tea partiers? Without Texas, Republicans would immediately lose 38 electoral votes, two senators and 24 members of Congress. (Democrats would lose only 12 House members.)
How would you rate the prospect of repealing Obamacare if Republicans could: never win another presidential election; never win another majority in the House; and never again win a Senate majority? Oh, and how does the expression "President Nancy Pelosi" grab you?
Would that bill be slightly more important to you than the Internet tax bill?
Well, guess what? Amnesty will produce the exact same result as losing the entire state of Texas. In fact, merely continuing our current immigration policies will achieve the same result; it will just take a little longer. (But wow, I'm sure glad we got "Octomom"! What a boon she's been to our American way of life.)
The population of Texas is about 27 million. With amnestied illegal aliens allowed to bring in their cousins and brothers-in-law under our insane "family reunification" policies, the 12 million illegal immigrants already here will quickly balloon to 30 million new voters—who happen to break 8-to-2 for the Democrats.
Consequently, before running off and staging a primary fight against a sitting Republican, anyone who truly loved his country would ask himself the following three questions:
(1) Does the incumbent Republican support amnesty? And by the way, "Supports amnesty" includes anyone who says one of the following:
(2) Is a primary challenge unlikely to flip a Republican seat to the Democrats?
(3) Am I fairly certain the challenger is smart enough
“It’s not over,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been quoted as saying about the Cliven Bundy “Ranch War” showdown in Nevada. After all, Reid says, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then walk away from it” —despite the real risk of another Waco or Ruby Ridge . [Sen. Reid on Cattle Battle, KRNV-DT News 4, April 14, 2014. Emphasis added].
Reid’s new-found concern for the rule of law comes too late. America is no longer a nation of laws, but an empire of “Diversity,” where the law is a meaningless fiction if it gets in the way of Political Correctness.
Obamacare is the outstanding and notorious example. No one knows what the law actually means anymore. President Obama has made many unilateral changes to the implementation of health care legislation, including moving deadlines, extending hardship waivers, and granting exemptions to politically important constituencies (like unions). [40 changes to Obamacare…so far, by Tyler Hartsfield and Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute, March 26, 2014. Originally “27 Changes,” updated to “40 changes,” April 8, 2014]
Of course, Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mike Lee have protested Obama’s actions. Lee has been quoted as saying: “We have a government of one… He is violating the Constitution.” [Obama Has Unilaterally Changed or Delayed Obamacare 24 times, by Rob Bluey, Heritage Foundation, February 17, 2014] But even though Conservatism Inc. talking heads like Charles Krauthammer jeer on Fox News that the law is “whatever [Obama] thinks,” there seem to be no consequences for this flagrant violation of the Presidential oath.
One discreditable reason: Republicans are gun-shy about challenging any legislation that is popular with minorities. And President Obama’s health care legislation continues to enjoy a disproportionate amount of support among Hispanics and especially among blacks. Even during a time of collapsing approval for the Affordable Care Act, 77% of blacks approve of the law, and only 18% disapprove. A small plurality of Hispanics favor the law, while over sixty percent of whites oppose it. [ACA at age 4: More Disapproval than Approval, PEW Research Center, March 20, 2014]
And these figures reflect a low point of Obamacare approval, something which is already changing because of Democrats coming home to support the law. [ABC/WaPo poll: Democratic support for Obamacare surges, plurality of public now supports the law,” HotAir, March 31, 2014]
As many as 61% of Hispanics, compared to 47% of Americans overall, believe it is the government’s responsibility to ensure health care coverage. So Hispanic support for the law, and for President Obama, can be expected to increase, especially because some of their opposition is driven by anger that the President was not being liberal enough. [Support for Obama, health care law has eroded among Hispanics, by Jens Manuel Krogstad and Seth Motel, PEW Research Center, March 27, 2014]
While the Republican Party may gripe that Obama is breaking the law,
Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson
In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her](an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.
The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definition of “precipice” is "the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation"—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the "de facto state of Israel," a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.
Needless to say, despite Craig-Richeson’s use of the word “precipice”, they do not view whites’ impending minority status as problematic. Indeed, they are eager suggest ways to make Whites complacent about their impending status.
The theoretical framework for the Craig-Richeson paper emphasizes the general finding that people who feel threatened tend to adopt more conservative views. Studies show that whites adopt more conservative political views not only after terrorist events like 9/11, but also when they live closer to black Americans:
[A]n analysis of voter-registration data for Louisiana parishes revealed that the larger the percentage of Blacks in a parish, the greater the percentage of Whites who were registered as Republicans and the lower the percentage of Whites who were registered as Democrats.
But it's still very easy for most Whites to avoid the costs of diversity and multiculturalism—"out of sight, out of mind." The Craig-Richeson study reinforces this observation.
In their first experiment, subjects (all experiments used only whites) were told that California had become a "majority minority" state, while control subjects were told that there were now approximately as many Hispanics as blacks in the US. The experimental subjects reported they leaned more toward the Republican Party and toward more conservative opinions, and this effect was increased among subjects who lived closer to California.
The top newspaper in our capital city, the Washington Post, is mouthpiecing a Refugee Industry campaign to convince Congress to welcome thousands of Syrians fleeing their civil war. But you can bet they won’t be resettled in Georgetown.
On April 4, WaPo front-paged the suffering Syrians story, with kiddie photos prominent, blatantly written to manipulate emotions:
BEIRUT — It was 10 p.m. on a chilly recent Wednesday, and the bars of Beirut were just getting into full swing. So was 10-year-old Mohammed Huzaifa’s working day.
Clutching a vase of red roses, he scoured the outdoor tables for a softhearted target. Spotting two women deep in conversation, the round-faced boy sidled up and broke into a wide smile, but was motioned away with a sharp shake of the head.
Mohammed, shivering in an orange T-shirt, repeated the steps with other potential customers until he had sold all 10 of his flowers. A beating from his mother awaits him if he doesn’t sell out, he says, so he often roams the streets until 3 a.m.
On the same day, the Post included a companion sniffler, Syrians are still suffering. Please don’t forget by Beirut-based novelist Dima Wannous.
These articles follow a front-page spreadon December 3, 2013 featuring an injured seven-year-old girl:
The contradiction between the vigorous, unapologetic ethnonationalism of Jews in Israel and the horror of other peoples’ ethnonationalism expressed by Jews elsewhere has been a recurrent topic here on VDARE.com—see, most recently, Is Immigration Really A ‘Jewish Value’? by Kevin MacDonald.
I think this contradiction is not hard to understand. If you are the ethnic majority in a nation, it is natural to wish to maintain the dominance of your ethny; if you belong to a minority ethny, especially one with as sorrowful a history as the Jews, it is just as natural to be hostile to the dominance of any other.
But these simple truths need restating, because the very peculiar cultural history of the Western world through the past few decades, leading to the widespread state of mind among whites that I call ethnomasochism, has made them nonobvious.
Cooper Sterling, writing, three years ago on VDARE.com, described a different, but related, contradiction—he used the word “paradox”—also concerning Jews.
Since the 1960s, a prominent group of Jewish public intellectuals has been systematically and unscrupulously campaigning to discredit eugenics—but, in a great paradox, other Jewish intellectuals, and Zionists, have been actively interested in eugenic principles, both historically and currently, to secure the posterity—health and wellbeing—of Jews. Collectively, it amounts to a case of Do As I Say—Not As I Do.
Sterling was summarizing the thesis of a book: Jewish Eugenics, by John Glad.
Glad is a retired Professor of Russian Studies with a distinguished career as a scholar and author. He describes himself in the preface to Jewish Eugenics as “a dyed-in-the-wool universalist” with a long-standing, but not racially-oriented, interest in eugenics.
The main text of Jewish Eugenics—ignoring the bibliography, indices, and front matter—covers 377 pages. It has its origin in an earlier and much shorter book, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (2006), which has a mere 111 pages of text.
That earlier, shorter book is the one I’ve just been reading, so this column is a companion to Cooper Sterling’s 2011 review of Jewish Eugenics. Both books, Future Human Evolution and Jewish Eugenics, are available in printed-and-bound format or as free downloads from John Glad’s website.
Future Human Evolution is, as its subtitle tells you, about eugenics in all generality. Only seven of its pages (35-6 and 83-7) are concerned with the Jews, so in writing the later book, Glad expanded that particular topic an impressive 54 times.
Needless to say, in the intellectual culture of the world today, “eugenics” is a scare word, at the sound of which goodthinkful persons are supposed to jump up on chairs, shriek, and clutch their skirts. I admire John Glad for approaching his subject matter calmly and without apology.
He works hard to point out that the obloquy that attaches t
America’s Cultural Marxist Left hates Conservatism Inc. and regularly claims that is racist, sexist, etc. Significantly, however, Conservatism Inc. doesn’t fight back by denouncing Political Correctness as such—instead, it merely seeks to show the criticism is hypocritical, which only ends up strengthening the Left by conceding the validity of the original charge. You can call this reverse political jujitsu “pulling a Williamson” —after National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson, who has made a specialty of it.
Look at the most recent result of a half century of standing athwart history crying “retreat!”: the auto-da-fé of tech innovator Brendan Eich. Eich was forced to step down as the CEO of Mozilla, because he donated $1,000 to California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in 2008. [Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla Corporation CEO, by Sam Machkovech, ArsTechnica, April 3, 2014] Prop. 8 won, but, as our ruling class allows no input from the American people on important issues, was subsequently blocked by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of Jimmy Carter (“history’s greatest monster”—The Simpsons.) It survives as the “H8” “anti-hate” motif on Leftist Tumblrs, blogs, and social networking sites
Of course, Barack Obama said marriage was between a “man and a woman” in 2004 and his position on the issue was still “evolving” as late as the 2012 campaign. [Timeline of Obama’s ‘Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage, by Devin Dwyer, ABC News, May 9, 2012]. But the goalposts of “social justice” are ever shifting, and many in the Main Stream Media hailed the destruction of yet another Enemy of the People. Still, Andrew Sullivan, who has fought for gay marriage for decades, did capture the reaction of many moderates when he says “if this is the gay rights movement today… then count me out.” [The Hounding of a Heretic, The Dish, April 3, 2014]
He started predictably, criticizing “so-called progressives” for their desire to criminalize dissent, recalling not just L’Affaire Eich, but Gawker contributor Adam Weinstein’s call to criminalize global-warming “deniers,” and the recent exclusion of conservative reporter Katherine Timpf from a feminist conference. “Welcome to the liberal gulag,” he wrote.
But falling back on the strained charge of “liberal fascism” misses the point. Of course the Left doesn’t believe in free speech, has grown intellectual lazy, and its driving force is “[protecting] their intellects, such as they are, from the discomfort of contact with nonconformist ideas.” But what Williamson, Goldberg, and other Conservatism Inc. publicists don’t get: the Left’s ideology is perfectly consistent by their own standards.
And, more importantly, Conservatism Inc. does the exact same thing that it decries in liberals—just with a delay of a few years.
For example, Williamson is disingenuous when he writes that Charles Murray was “denounced as a ‘known white supremacist’ by Texas Democrats” for holding heterodox views on education policy” and earning the ire of the Southern Poverty Law Center. [Candidate for Texas Governor Invokes Man Who Believes Women and Minorities Are Inferior, by Laura Basset, Huffington Post, April 1, 2014] Actually, Murray was denounced for believing in the reality of IQ differences among different groups. His “heterodox views on education policy” are much the same as Robert Weissberg’s—whom National Review purged! Editor Rich Lowry even thanked the Leftists who alerted him to Weissberg’s heresy.
This would probably be news to Adam Weinstein or the rest of the gang