Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Hurricane Sandy: Neighborhood Spontaneous Order Versus Housing Project Chaos and MSM Lies—The Stix Family Saga
The Stix family lives fifty yards from the Atlantic Ocean in the West End of Queens’ Rockaway Peninsula, which was more or less Ground Zero for Hurricane Sandy on October 29 2012. We stayed, and were cut off from the world for a month. Many thanks to the VDARE.com readers who expressed concern and especially those who donated to VDARE.com’s tax-deductible Nicholas Stix Still Alive and Well, But Extremely Stubborn Project. What follows is a personal and political report of a society under traumatic stress.
Today!—the Rockaways. Tomorrow!—America…
The New York Review of Books has just published a Bizarro World essay on Hurricane Sandy’s impact on The Rockaways, by one Michael Greenberg, who says he grew up here. There was no crime, and the black cut-throats from the local city housing projects were merely the victims of (presumably racist) neglect by the city. [Occupy the Rockaways! January 10, 2013. The headline is a reference to Greenberg’s claim that some the relief worker volunteers “had been participants in last year’s Occupy Wall Street protest.”]
Well, admittedly, the Stix family was not victimized by criminals of any race—unless we count the local hardware store, from which we’re still trying to recoup $800 for a 200-pound generator that died after 10 minutes!
We got out of Sandy with little in losses due to not having a basement (everyone who had one got flooded); to having a huge building next door to block for us; and to The Boss.
We knew Sandy would make landfall at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 29. So, naturally, The Boss decides to walk to work on the boardwalk at exactly that time.
After working 22 straight hours—she’s a nurse—she had just come home to shower, and because she can’t trust me to take care of our son. (Never mind that I took care of him 23/7 when he was a newborn, while she went to nursing school full-time and worked as a nurse aide weekends).
I told her to forget it, or to use the street. She nixed that, afraid that falling electrical lines might electrocute her. (If things are so bad that you’re in danger of being electrocuted just walking to work… oh, never mind.)
As with Hurricane Irene, my son and I celebrated landfall by hobnobbing with our neighbors on the boardwalk, prepared to run inside at a moment’s notice.
The Boss passes us, heading to work. I can’t let her go alone, and my son won’t stay home alone, so we’re all going to her job.
About a minute later, here comes Sandy!
The first wave hits the beach side of the boardwalk. The second one takes about one second to make it from one side of the boardwalk to the other. My son and I simultaneously hatch the same crazy idea: To hoist him up and over the rail on his side, onto the grass a foot below. But the wave is too fast, and throws him over, with him clinging to the rail, as if to the side of ship. I was sure he’d broken
Memo From Middle America| Why Do We Put Up With This? Mexico’s New President Enrique Pena Nieto Openly Plans To Meddle In U.S.
Mexico has a new president. Enrique Pena Nieto was elected in July of 2012 and took office on December 1st, 2012. The Mexican presidency is a six-year term with no reelection, so Pena Nieto will be with us until 2018.
Under the past three Mexican presidents—Ernesto Zedillo, Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon—the Mexican government has actively meddled in U.S. immigration policy, campaigned for amnesty and non-compliance with immigration law, and has claimed jurisdiction over American citizens of Mexican ancestry.
I’ve been writing about this for years, as have other writers. See my 2002 Social Contract article Undue Influence – the Government of Mexico and U.S. Immigration Policies, and of course my VDARE.COM archive for plenty of articles on the topic.
What’s particularly disturbing is that, despite this open meddling, no U.S. politicians seem particularly interested in or concerned about the subject.
The brutal fact is that all Mexican political parties, regardless of their differences, agree in their support of illegal aliens in the United States. They all support amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens in our country. And given Mexico’s huge diplomatic network north of the border, they have a lot of pull.
So what is Enrique Pena Nieto’s position?
In the Mexican political system, the president is elected in July but isn’t inaugurated until December. That gives him plenty of time to transition to the presidency, assemble his team, get ready to go. And during that five months, Pena Nieto and his team did indeed speak to these issues.
On November 23, 2012, after the U.S. presidential election, then president-elect Pena Nieto had an opinion piece published in his name in the Washington Post. Here’s how it began:
“Both Mexico and the United States held presidential
Target: Kris Kobach (and his People)?
Immigration Splits GOP, Business Groups in Kansas by Neil King Jr. January 22, 2013 is quite open about this:
Kansas is showing the strains arising within the GOP over competing visions of how to handle undocumented workers.
A coalition of powerful business groups, including the Farm Bureau and the conservative Kansas Chamber of Commerce, is proposing a guest-worker program that would turn the state into one of the most welcoming in the country for undocumented immigrants. Backing the effort are national conservatives, local faith groups and a number of law-enforcement officials.
To soothe conservative jitters, the coalition drafted anti-tax activist Grover Norquist to address a Topeka breakfast last week packed with state lawmakers. Trying to punish everyone who broke the law getting into the country, he said, would be like fining everyone who ever broke the national 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, before that was lifted. "We have a 55-mile-an-hour immigration law," he said.
Significantly, the local GOP Establishment has qualms
Caught in the middle, and wishing it would all go away, is Gov. Sam Brownback, who earned a reputation while in the U.S. Senate as one of the GOP's leading advocates for immigrant rights…. "This is a federal issue and should remain a federal issue," he said in an interview, acknowledging that he feared an immigration fight could split the state GOP.
…Republican state House Speaker Ray Merrick shares the Brownback belief that no action is the best action. "I'm not real enthused about having an immigration debate this year," he said.
There is, however, the possibility that a blindly selfish attack on the living standards of fellow Kansans is not the primary motive for this effort. The Wall Street Journal disapprovingly notes
But lined up against them is Kansas' ambitious Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, who is promoting a series of measures in the legislature to crack down on illegal workers and their employers.
...Mr. Kobach became a national lightning-rod after he helped draft tough immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, the first of which sparked a Supreme Court brawl for the Obama administration.
Mr. Kobach calls the business coalition's plan "dead on arrival" and has the support of a large faction within the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature, which is expected to wade into the immigration fight this spring.
A nationwide Amnesty push is underway. Bribery (enjoy that first big paycheck, Mr. De Mint?) and repression, as always, are the Treason Lobby’s first weapons. Could it be that challenging Kobach in his home state is a maneuver to impede his emergence onto the national stage?
As usual with Wall Street Journal immigration articles, the comment thread consists of very well-informed Patriots wiping the floor with Open Borders loonies.
I particularly liked
We owe the concept of BRA, “Black Run America”, to the inestimable Paul Kersey of Stuff Black People Like. He argues that America is literally run by what he calls Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs) but that “every institution is entirely devoted to protecting and promoting the interests of black people above all others.” The historic American nation is under the heel of Django Unchained. Needless to say, BRA is increasingly dysfunctional.
In counterpoint to BRA is BRB: a “Brown Run Border,” where an increasingly Hispanic Department of Homeland Security plus local law enforcement—police, deputy sheriffs and constables, especially in Texas where the border counties are heavily Hispanic—are correspondingly increasingly corrupt.
In a troubling admission to Congress, a high-ranking official from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revealed that the agency charged with protecting the nation’s borders is plagued with internal corruption that could put the U.S. at risk.
What sort of corruption? The federal agents who are supposed to safeguard America against terrorists and instruments of terror are teaming up with Mexican drug cartels and alien smugglers, according to Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Thomas Winkowski. The shocking acknowledgement was made by Winkowski at a recent hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security.
In the last eight years, 138 agents from CBP have been charged with corruption and more than 2,000 have been charged in other criminal cases, according to Winkowski’s testimony before the panel. The purpose of the hearing was to address ethical standards within the DHS and its various agencies. Winkowski was there to inform the panel about CPB’s efforts to address issues concerning corruption and misconduct among its employees.
U.S. CBP Agents Team Up With Mexican Drug Cartels, Judicial Watch May 22, 2012
And the corruption is not limited to federal employees. Note the names in this recent story:
McALLEN - A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted four former members of Hidalgo County's now-disbanded Panama Unit.
The grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Jonathan Trevino, Alexis Rigoberto Espinoza, Fabian Rodriguez and Gerardo Mendoza-Duran.
The indictment includes one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, which charges all four men, as well as five substantive counts of attempting to aid and abet the possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.
Espinoza and Duran are charged with four of the substantive counts, while Trevino and Rodriguez were indicted on one of those charges.
Trevino, 28, Espinoza, 29, Rodriguez, 28, and Mendoza-Duran, 30, were charged in December and arrested following a multi-agency investigation conducted during 2012.
The indictment alleges Trevino and Espinoza, former officers with the Mission Police Department, along with Rodriguez and Duran, former deputies with the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office, attempted to use their positions in law enforcement to assist drug traffickers with the distribution of cocaine.
On several occasions in October and November, the defendants allegedly provided protective escorts for suspected loads of cocaine as they traveled throughout Hidalgo County.
Trevino is the son of Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino and Espinoza is the son of Hidalgo Police Chief Rudy Espinoza.
Panama Unit Members Indicted, KRVG January 9, 2013
Here’s an earlier example of the emerging BRB pattern—note the names again:
MCALLEN — Starr County Sheriff Reymundo Guerra was indicted on drug charges and arrested by FBI agents Tuesday at his Rio Grande City office.
The 52-year-old sheriff, also known as "Tio," is a defendant in an indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury earlier this month.
The 19-count indictment alleges Guerra and 14 others were part of a conspiracy to move hundreds of pounds of marijuana and cocaine through the remote Mexican border county.
Guerra is charged with three counts, including conspiracy, acting as an accessory by suggesting a co-defendant use fake lease documents to avoid apprehension, and using a telephone in the conspiracy.
by Lynn Brezosky, Houston Chronicle. October 14, 2008
Here’s a short list of recent U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees arrested for various causes over the last eighteen months or so:
"Second Term Begins With a Sweeping Agenda for Equality," ran the eight-column banner in which The Washington Post captured the essence of Obama's second inaugural. There he declared:
"What binds this nation together ... what makes us exceptional—what makes us American—is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago."
Obama then quoted our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our "union," Obama went on, was "founded on the principles of liberty and equality."
Nice prose—and transparent nonsense.
How could the American Union have been founded on the principle of equality, when "equality" is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Federalist papers? How could equality be a founding principle of a nation, six of whose 13 original states had legalized slavery, and five of whose first seven presidents owned slaves all their lives?
What Obama preached in his inaugural was not historical truth but progressive propaganda, an Orwellian rewrite of American history.
Undeniably, the post-Civil War 13th, 14th and 15th amendments established an equality of constitutional rights. And from the Brown decision of 1954 through the civil rights acts of the 1960s, there was established an equality of civil rights. Black Americans were assured equal access to schools, public accommodations, the voting booth and housing. And Congress and the people overwhelmingly supported those laws.
But if the nation did not establish equality of constitutional rights until the 1860s and equality of civil rights until the 1960s, how can Obama claim that "equality" has been the feature that "makes us American" and "binds this nation together."
How can he say that our commitment to equality is what makes us "exceptional"—when every Western country believes in equal rights for all of its citizens, and it was the French Revolution, not ours, that elevated "egalite" to a founding principle.
And when he says equality "is the star that guides us still," exactly what kind of equality is Obama talking about?
Answer: The equality of which Obama speaks is not an equality of rights but an equality of results, an idea that dates not to the Founding Fathers, who would have been appalled by the idea, but to the 1960s.
This equality is not a founding principle of the republic. It is ideological contraband. For such equality can only be achieved at the price of freedom, our true founding principle.
That idea that "all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still," said Obama in his inaugural, "just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall."
Astonishing. The president is here making the brazen claim that the roots of modern feminism and gay rights can be traced straight back to the Founding Fathers and founding principles of our republic.
But how? The
John Derbyshire’s Address to the First VDARE.com Webinar: Our Job Is To Combat "Anosognosia" BY SQUIRTING ICE-COLD WATER INTO SOCIETY'S LEFT EAR
[This is adapted from an address by John Derbyshire to the First VDARE.com Webinar on January 19 2013. We hope to make recordings available shortly. For information when available, email firstname.lastname@example.org with “Webinar recording” in subject line]
1. Introduction: Name, Rank, Serial Number
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Derbyshire. I am a freelance writer.
When I tell people that, quite a common response is: Yes, but what do you do for a living? Incredible to report, this is my living, and has been for the past twelve years. I have published four books and a CD, and self-published a fifth book. I have written a vast amount of fugitive journalism of the lower sort—opinionating, book reviews, travel diaries—all of which can be found on my website, johnderbyshire.com.
I was briefly the subject of widespread attention—widespread, I mean, by the standards of the world of opinion journalism, which is not very widespread—last Spring, at the time of the Trayvon Martin business.
Black journalists were writing solemn two-hanky pieces about how they have to give their kids “The Talk,” to make them aware how dangerous white people are to them. In fact, of course, blacks are far more dangerous to whites than whites are to blacks, by a factor of about five to one on the Department of Justice’s published statistics.
I wrote up for Taki’s Magazine the kind of “Talk” a nonblack parent might give to his child, to apprise him of the facts about race in America. The leftists raised a hue and cry, and one of my main outlets, National Review, jumped on the bandwagon and banished me from their pages and screens.
My other conservative outlets showed stiffer spines, and you can read my stuff regularly at Taki’s Magazine, VDARE.com, and The New Criterion. You can also hear my weekly podcast, Radio Derb, now hosted by Taki’s Magazine. My thanks to the various proprietors for not having joined in the Leftist lynch mob.
VDARE.com is a website dedicated to news, research, and opinions relating to the National Question.
What is the National Question? Well, if you want it phrased as an actual question, I can’t improve on the title that the late Professor Samuel Huntington gave to his final book, published in 2004: Who Are We?That is the National Question.
If that’s the question, what’s the answer? Again it’s hard to improve on Huntington. Here is what he said:
The [American philosophical-Constitutional] Creed is unlikely to retain its salience if Americans abandon the Anglo-Protestant culture in which it has been rooted. A multicultural America will, in time, become a multi-creedal America, with groups with different cultures espousing distinctive political values and principles rooted in their particular cultures.
The National Question thus embraces issues of immigration, population, race, culture, language, religion, and national identity. Those are the topics you will most frequently encounter on VDARE.com.
That’s not to say you won’t encounter other topics. We VDARE.com contributors are a lively lot, with active and enquiring minds. You might find yourself looking at a movie review, a table of sport statistics, or a blog post on education, crime, opera, or Chinese onomastics.
We stay mostly on-topic, though, and the topic is the National Question, with a particular emphasis on patriotic immigration reform.
That makes us seriously unpopular with some important and powerful people and institutions. Why? Let me try to explain.
Please permit me to quote myself. This is from Chapter Seven of my book We Are Doomed (a title which, I should say, was not intended as an answer to Prof. Huntington). The chapter topic is human nature.
The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list.
For those of us who write about the National Question, it’s the social aspect of human nature that keeps pushing itself to the front of our minds.
The reason is that we are citizens living in society, like the rest of you. We are mostly of a law-abiding, bourgeois temperament. As my colleague James Fulford likes to say: We brush our teeth. We do not relish the sound of breaking glass. Like Sir Thomas More in the play, we think none harm, we speak none harm, we do none harm.
Why, then, are we unpopular? Why are we actually regarded as dangerous by multitudes of our fellow citizens?
The reason is, that if you conduct careful empirical inquiry into National Question issues, you often come up with results that throw doubt on the idols of the tribe—on what Kipling called “the Gods of the market-place.”
That, to right-thinking citizens, is a very shocking thing to do. Recall that Socrates was tried and sentenced to death for “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges.” If you fail to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges, you are not a good citizen.
There is no need for the gods, the idols of the tribe, to be actual deities. They can be abstract principles welded together into an ideology. The dissidents who plagued the rulers of the old U.S.S.R., and who still plague the rulers of Communist China today—people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, Wei Jingsheng and Liu Xiaobo—have been brought to trial in officially atheist states for the same reason Socrates was brought to trial in Athens: They failed to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges.
I was surprised to find, when living in Communist China, that citizens—including sensible and well-educated citizens, including people who grumbled about the system they lived under—did not like these dissidents. In their minds, private grumbling did not make you a bad citizen; but making a fuss with your complaints in public did. It was seen as a selfish indulgence. “He should think of his family,” people would say; or, “He’ll weaken the country behaving like that.”
It would be impertinent for me, living a comfortable life and so far in no danger of being shipped to a labor camp—let alone of having to drink hemlock—to claim identity with the great dissidents of history. I will unblushingly claim some similarities of personality, though.
In our lesser way, we are dissidents, and VDARE.com is a dissident website. We do not acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges, the idols of the tribe. As Socrates described the accusations against him in the Apology: We speculate about the earth above, and
The rise and fall of nations and cultures is too abstract for most people. But fiction, especially that informed by journalism, can shows how the sweeping patterns of history play out the micro level. Individual stories can be just as informative as any grand history of the clash of civilizations.
H.L. Mencken, who died 57 years ago this week, was the greatest newspaperman of his age, or perhaps of any age. He shaped the thought of a generation with The American Mercury (now available online thanks to Ron Unz). He changed the way Americans viewed the way they speak with his book The American Language . Most critically, as the author of the first English-language book on Friedrich Nietzsche, a champion of free speech and of a kind of idiosyncratic aristocratic radicalism, Mencken has been an important influence on the libertarian American Old Right and the emerging North American New Right.
A new collection of Mencken’s early fiction, The Passing of a Profit and Other Forgotten Stories, provides a vital perspective on his vanished world.
Motifs run through these seventeen tales that were developed further in Mencken's public writings and private diaries. Among the most important: the confrontation between the civilized Western man and the savage. Like his contemporary H.P. Lovecraft, Mencken identified what he called the “civilized minority” with Northern Europeans. But it's not a perfect association—Mencken's contempt for the socially conservative and rural “Real Americans” of the Sarah Palin mold is well known.
And this collection can hardly be called racist. For example, “The Cook's Victory” is a hilarious recounting of a black cook winning a pardon from a poaching ship captain who wants to execute him for “mutiny.” His victory comes from the captain's need for his help as the police approach, slowly gaining more and more concessions, finally winning his freedom just as the captain makes good his escape. In “The Crime of McSwane,” a white soldier fighting in a colonial war loses his rifle and goes mad at the reduction in status, encouraging his comrades to die so he can reclaim his position. Other stories show Northern Europeans coming out on top of Southern Europeans or non-white “natives,” but often as a result of swindling or fraud—hardly an edifying picture of the “civilizing” power of Western Man.
Still, even in negative stories, there's a fierce consciousness of status entirely absent from contemporary Europeans. There's something bracing about tale after tale of laughing and confident British, Germans, and especially Americans casually striding through the Third World like swaggering colossi, changing entire societies on a whim.
In “The Heathen Rage,” a German swindler makes his way to Jamaica and exploits an old royal land grant to a Major Johann von Braun to convince black Jamaicans named “Brown” (which is to say, lots of Jamaicans) that they are entitled to estates. The result is chaos, as the swindler
[This is adapted from an address by James Fulford to the First VDARE.com Webinar on January 19 2013. We hope to make recordings available shortly. For information when available, email email@example.com with “Webinar recording” in subject line]
12 years ago, shortly after 9/11, I wrote a piece called Reconquista, Terrorism, and Gun Control [October 17, 2001]
However, immigration includes
And what gun control is about is preventing you from defending yourself when the government that can’t or won’t defend you.
“Can’t defend you” means obviously that the police can’t be there all the time—the saying is that “when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”
“Won’t defend you” is something different. It refers to the fact that you may need help and the government will refuse to come. Some examples:
- In the LA Rodney King riots, the LAPD backed away. When the rioting started, police in police cars were told by radio to leave the area. They didn’t come back until much later. Korean store owners were forced to use rifles to defend themselves, because there were no police in sight.
- The Puerto Rican Day Wildings in New York in 2000, where 57 women were sexually assaulted as police refused to make arrests.
- The August 2011 London Riots, where, as the Daily Mail put it, shopkeepers were “mystified at tactics that left them defenceless.”
- Hurricane Katrina: the federal government held back, and the black New Orleans PD deserted and took part in the looting.
- Crown Heights Riot—blacks terrorized Jews in Crown Heights for days without police interference.
The Crown Heights Riot is a special case—it has also been described as a pogrom. The parallel with the Russian pogroms of the 19th century is that black mayor of New York, David Dinkins, was permitting the riots by failing to order the police to stop them. The suspicion is that Dinkins may have sympathized with the anti-Semitic black rioters.
But in most cases, the authorities are simply being cowardly,
[For more on MLK Day, see When Records Are Sealed—A Meditation On Martin Luther King Day]
For whatever reason, the indisputable fact that MLK ripped off other writers has evolved over the past few years from “evil racist lie” to shrugged-off common knowledge. When I see hip, semi-respectable sites writing matter-of-factly about MLK’s sticky fingers, it gives me hope that other “forbidden” topics will one day make the same journey to acceptability. (HBD, anyone?)
Anyway: what better way to mark Martin Luther King Day than by telling the story of another plagiarizing black “doctor” and lefty role model.
This one’s name is Chris Spence, and in a neat twist, he’s Canadian. That means he won’t get Monday off work—not that it matters now. He was forced to resign from his job as Director of Education at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) anyhow, after his cut-and-paste career came to light this month.
Born in Britain, of Jamaican heritage, Spence moved to Canada at age three. After an injury ended his stint as a running back for the Canadian Football League’s BC Lions, he went back to school. Eventually, Spence snagged a Doctor of Education degree from one of Toronto’s more notorious hotbeds of leftwing lunacy, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE.)
He joined the TDSB in 2009, and proceeded to steer the School Board in an even more “progressive” direction—something few would have considered possible.
On Spence’s watch, the Toronto District School Board:
- Allowed a lunchtime “mosque” to operate in a public school, despite objections from parents and pundits. (During these “voluntary” prayer services, male Muslim students sit at the front, Muslim girls sit behind them—and menstruating Muslim girls are relegated to the very back rows.)
- Promoted Che Guevara as a laudable role model.
- Declared that only white people can be racist—and that white children need to be singled out for reeducation. (One Board guide “instructs teachers to solicit confessions from students about ‘the times that they have been oppressive or have used their [white] privilege over someone else.’”) [ A new racism in our kids’ schools, By Brian Henry, Jewish Tribune, May 4, 2012]
- Promoted polygamy and transsexualism to students, and demanded that “transgendered” individuals be allowed to use the school restrooms of their choice.
- Scolded parents for treating “their children differently, based on gender, almost from the moment of birth,” and insisted that teachers be proactive in “raising children’s awareness of these stereotypes” and “eliminating gender barriers wherever they may be found.” [ Anti-Sexism and Gender Equity, TDSB Website]
- Acknowledged that its staff intentionally discriminates against Christianity
- Recommended that children have sex with vegetables as a way to “develop healthy relationships”
While all this was going on, Chris Spence was busily burnishing his public image as a caring, concerned educator. A backstory that blended athleticism and academics made him the perfect male role model to the city’s “urban” youth, a To Sir With Love for Toronto’s immigration-created Jane-Finch ghetto.
That is, until the first week of this year. After being tipped off by an alert reader, the city’s doctrinaire liberal Toronto Star newspaper was forced to apologize
Ron Unz’s The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions? [American Conservative, November 28, 2012] was one of the most devastating magazine articles I have ever read. It revealed the Ivy League admission process’s bias against White Anglo Saxon Protestants—a.k.a. WASPs, America’s founding stock—and in favor of Jewish applicants. (The Ivy League is also anti-Asian—the only aspect of Unz article that got any Main Stream Media attention).
Thus, last summer, the Christian Science Monitor carried a portentous article on America’s founding stock (of which Christian Scientists are of course an offshoot): US Government and Politics No Longer Run by WASPs, Do It Matter? By Brad Knickerbocker, August 19, 2012. It declared White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism moribund and bereft of social and political weight.
If true, this constitutes a sociological seismic shift—and it bodes ill for America’s future. Will WASP a.k.a. American values continue without WASPs?
What is happening here? I can offer a unique perspective: I was born, the child of WASP and French Canadian-descended parents—a common New England mix—in Newport, Rhode Island, the playground of America’s Gilded Age capitalists. As an energetic ten year old, I rode my Schwinn down streets crowded with reproduction Italianate and XVIIIe Siècle chateaus.
Raised an Episcopalian, I received First Communion and Confirmation at Trinity Church, which was the “society” parish and flaunted gaudy stained glass windows dedicated to various Vanderbilt family members.
I became quickly familiar with the characteristic sartorial choices considered eccentric by most Americans: pink trousers, madras jackets etc. (I was sensible enough not to wear them myself). Many of my childhood playmates boasted names readily found in the Social Register—and access to trust funds when they reached twenty-one.
Yet I personally was not of them. I came from a solidly middle-class family and lived in a respectable neighborhood, but one removed from Bellevue Avenue’s grandeur. To put it simply, I lived in Newport but was not of it. This allowed me to observe American Old Money society for years, and to reflect on its attributes and limitations, as an intimate outsider.
Alas, I can agree with much of Knickerbocker’s assessment of American WASPdom. One notices immediately the utter lack of energy on the part of so many within this subculture. After spending an evening with them, one comes away thinking, “These are the descendants of the men who built America into a world power?!”
They seemingly spend much of their waking lives in a state of languid ennui. Armed with a gin and tonic and the Wall Street Journal, many doze away their afternoons at exclusive clubs such as the Newport Reading Room and the Spouting Rock Beach Association.
This is also a distinctly geriatric crowd. But their progeny
Most VDARE.com readers are probably not in the 18-35 year old liberal female target demographic of the HBO darkish comedy series Girls, which premiered its second season and won the Golden Globe for best comedy series on Sunday, January 13. Still, the first season’s show was—unintentionally— the most Politically Incorrect and subversive show in years.
Girls stars four 20-something girls. They come from upper-middle class families, attended schools like NYU andOberlin, and begin a life of unpaid internships and unfulfilling sex, living in gentrified areas of Brooklyn.
The show self-consciously models itself on Sex and the City, in that it stars four single females living in New York. But the actual substance of the shows could not be further apart. The portrayal of promiscuity in Sex and the City was completely at odds with how women actually act. This fact eventually became so apparent that even The Simpsons mocked a parody Sex and the City show called Nookie in New York—"It's about four straight women who act like gay men."
Samantha, the most promiscuous character in Sex and the City is an extremely successful business woman who simply understands her own sexual power. In contrast, the promiscuous Jessa on Girls uses sex for petty reasons, sleeping with her ex-boyfriend solely because she found he was engaged, and manipulating her “boss” (the father of the children she is nannying) and nearly destroying his marriage.
Steve Sailer once wrote that he suspected that the writers of Girls may be channeling Roissy, the anonymous writer of the anti-feminist “game” blog Chateau Heartiste. There is certainly some substance behind this. The most attractive girl on the show, Marnie, gets turned off and bored by her extremely nice guy boyfriend, but becomes interested again when he dumps her and she sees him with an attractive new girlfriend. The main character, Hannah, continues to go back to a creepy and verbally abusive guy she sleeps with every two weeks when he texts her, but when he finally shows actual interest in her, she rejects him.
In most modern Hollywood shows, no one ever has an abortion. Hit films like Knocked-Up (directed by Girlsproducer Judd Apatow) and Juno are premised on upper-middle class whites with unplanned pregnancies deciding to keep their babies. Sure enough, when the single attorney Miranda gets pregnant in Sex and the City, she keeps the baby after long deep discussions with her girlfriends.
But when Jessa got pregnant in Girls, there as almost no agonized introspection among her or her friends. While she has a convenient miscarriage, it occurred after she was drinking and having more casual sex with a stranger. Hardly showing an empowered, or caring,
Longtime fans of Paul Gottfried, the distinguished political theorist who recently retired as Professor of Humanities at Pennsylvania’s Elizabethtown College, know that much of his best work is found in the periodical press (including VDARE.com). So it may surprise that Arktos’s new collection of his occasional essays and reviews, War and Democracy: Selected Essays 1975-2012, is the first ever published.
Included are appreciations of significant figures important in Gottfried’s own thinking: Oswald Spengler, Herbert Marcuse, George F. Kennan, Theodor Adorno, Joe Sobran, and Gottfried’s own father, born in the Hapsburg Empire in 1911. There are reflections on ethnic masochism, especially in its postwar German form, as well as the semantic dérapage undergone by terms such as fascism, liberalism, conservatism and democracy.
Of course, there is no lack of abrasive commentary on the fanatical Wilsonian will-to-power, disguised as morality, which now rages under the name of neoconservatism.
1) It allows self-styled conservatives to have some fun by applying to the other side a pejorative term that the Left has had a monopoly on.
2) Historically, critics such as John T. Flynn had interpreted Roosevelt’s New Deal as the American equivalent of the Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s National Socialism (an analysis Dr. Gottfried considers flawed).
3) The “fascist” label is a thinly disguised reductio ad Hitlerum.
4) Most importantly (in Dr. Gottfried’s view) because the neoconservatives who have taken over Conservatism, Inc., are in fact unreconstructed leftists to whom the identification of everything evil with “fascism” comes naturally.
Needless to say, the average Conservatism Inc. columnist would be satisfied with any one of these explanations. Gottfried’s care in distinguishing four is just one small example of why your time is better spent reading him than them.
Thanks to the neoconservatives, Gottfried argues, millions of Americans now believe that the very essence of conservatism lies in “defending wars that our government involves us in.” Such wars, we are assured, are our only guarantee of peace. For America is a democracy, and, as Gottfried summarizes, only democracies, according to every neoconservative scribbler on the planet, can be peaceful; indeed, non-democratic governments are compulsively mischievous and will, unless brought to see the light, unleash war on the bearers of democratic virtue.
In Loudoun County, Whites Aren’t Voting Republican—Because The GOP Won't Address ANY Issues That Matter To Them
I am a VDARE.com reader who resides in one of the major swing counties in the United States—Loudoun County, Virginia. Loudoun is the most affluent and one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. About a 45 minute drive to Washington D.C. (which takes about 2 hours or more during rush hour), Loudoun was mostly farmland 25-30 years ago. Today it is a slice of stereotypical suburbia.
New, sprawling housing developments and strip malls have long crowded out the old farms and family businesses that used to mark the area. Where I live you can go from strip malls to century-old farm houses (some still inhabited) on dirt roads in a matter of two minutes. But it is clear that the old farm houses will not last much longer.
During the recent election, I—along with my neighbors—was was bombarded with campaign literature and robo-calls. Every single Romney piece focused solely on economic issues. My wife was particularly targeted with invitations to attend “Women for Romney” events with Ann Romney. Loudoun was clearly a major target for the Republicans.
They didn’t hit that target.
Obama received 81,900 votes (51.52 percent) in Loudoun County to Mitt Romney’s 74,793 votes (47.05 percent). This was unquestionably a stunning defeat in an affluent, mostly white county that had just elected an all-Republican Board of Supervisors.
Republican strategists don’t likely read VDARE.com. But I can give them an insider’s view as to why they are not winning in Loudoun.
Rapid demographic change is certainly part of the reason for Loudoun turning blue. The county voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964. But in 2008 it went Democrat for the first time since Lyndon Johnson.
As of 2011, the demographics of Loudoun are as follows:
- White 61.6%
- Asian 14.7%
- Hispanic 12.6%
- Black 8.0%
There are no stats for the racial breakdown of the Loudoun 2012 vote, but here is how the presidential vote in Virginia broke down by race:
- Whites 61% for Romney
- Asians 66% for Obama
- Hispanics 64% for Obama
- Blacks 93% for Obama
The GOP did marginally better among Asians and Hispanics in Virginia than they did nationally (25 % and 27% respectively). But the fact remains that only whites will vote for Republicans in great numbers.
And the GOP white share in Virginia was only slightly above the national average (59%). VDARE.com has argued that the GOP (or GAP) must nationalize Southern voting patterns i.e. the GOP gets 73% of the white vote in Texas—and 88% in Mississippi. But in this putatively Southern state, the reverse seems to be happening.
Most of the Loudoun Hispanics are recent arrivals. They are settling in the town of Sterling, which