0 comment Friday, October 3, 2014 | admin
The latest news that has some people, especially conservatives and counter-jihadists astir, is that the Netherlands has announced an abandonment of multiculturalism, in favor of an integrationist model.
It's baffling that many people commenting on the Internet are hailing this as some kind of milestone, when if we just look back as far as February of this year, we find the Dutch Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen saying something similar.
Verhagen has also come out with a new statement: ''Fear of foreigners'', he says, is understandable, but...
''Verhagen said he wants to distance himself from populism but that he is not blind to what drives it. 'We have to make sure we do not dismiss these concerns as being offensive or unmentionable,' he will say. 'Such unease should also be the unease of a people's party like the CDA.'
Solutions offered by some parties are populist and simplistic, Verhagen says, in a veiled reference to the anti-Islam PVV. 'The fact that the multi-cultural society has failed is not a reason to crawl back behind the dykes and to reject everything which is strange and unfamiliar.''[Emphasis mine]
Here is an admission that the intent is to steal the thunder of the populist parties, or the more pro-Dutch parties. Isn't this always the motive when these Western leaders make these anti-multiculturalist statements?
It seems as though it works; it's amazing how people are so willing to be placated by a few words. After all, talk is cheap.
We can look back and see David Cameron's statement that multiculturalism is a failure. and yet has anything changed for the better in the UK since that statement was made? Has anything changed substantially in Australia since John Howard made a similar statement? Or what about Angela Merkel's speeches along these lines? Tony Blair's? In fact we can see they keep saying these things, and yet nothing really changes. They've been making these speeches for some years now, and the multicult juggernaut keeps rolling on.
Even if the ruling powers in the Netherlands really mean what they are saying, what they are in fact saying is that they will go on being committed 110 percent to a 'diverse', multiracial society, but will demand that immigrants and Dutch-born ''others'' integrate and blend in, adapt.
And what is the outcome when integration is pursued? Blending of the peoples, until some kind of amorphous population is attained. The Netherlands may insist on 'integration' but the people of that country, the actual Dutch people, will be integrated to everybody else, ultimately, and cease to be recognizably and distinctively Dutch, just as our country's character has been melted down gradually since 'diversity' first arrived on these shores.
I hope the Dutch people will not settle for this kind of empty gesture; integration is not what is needed. It means loss of identity and character, and eventual replacement, as long as mass immigration continues unabated.
It's baffling that many people commenting on the Internet are hailing this as some kind of milestone, when if we just look back as far as February of this year, we find the Dutch Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen saying something similar.
Verhagen has also come out with a new statement: ''Fear of foreigners'', he says, is understandable, but...
''Verhagen said he wants to distance himself from populism but that he is not blind to what drives it. 'We have to make sure we do not dismiss these concerns as being offensive or unmentionable,' he will say. 'Such unease should also be the unease of a people's party like the CDA.'
Solutions offered by some parties are populist and simplistic, Verhagen says, in a veiled reference to the anti-Islam PVV. 'The fact that the multi-cultural society has failed is not a reason to crawl back behind the dykes and to reject everything which is strange and unfamiliar.''[Emphasis mine]
Here is an admission that the intent is to steal the thunder of the populist parties, or the more pro-Dutch parties. Isn't this always the motive when these Western leaders make these anti-multiculturalist statements?
It seems as though it works; it's amazing how people are so willing to be placated by a few words. After all, talk is cheap.
We can look back and see David Cameron's statement that multiculturalism is a failure. and yet has anything changed for the better in the UK since that statement was made? Has anything changed substantially in Australia since John Howard made a similar statement? Or what about Angela Merkel's speeches along these lines? Tony Blair's? In fact we can see they keep saying these things, and yet nothing really changes. They've been making these speeches for some years now, and the multicult juggernaut keeps rolling on.
Even if the ruling powers in the Netherlands really mean what they are saying, what they are in fact saying is that they will go on being committed 110 percent to a 'diverse', multiracial society, but will demand that immigrants and Dutch-born ''others'' integrate and blend in, adapt.
And what is the outcome when integration is pursued? Blending of the peoples, until some kind of amorphous population is attained. The Netherlands may insist on 'integration' but the people of that country, the actual Dutch people, will be integrated to everybody else, ultimately, and cease to be recognizably and distinctively Dutch, just as our country's character has been melted down gradually since 'diversity' first arrived on these shores.
I hope the Dutch people will not settle for this kind of empty gesture; integration is not what is needed. It means loss of identity and character, and eventual replacement, as long as mass immigration continues unabated.
Labels: Elites, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Replacement
0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
There is a short piece today from Fjordman at Gates Of Vienna, titled Heeding Locke and Jefferson.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.
Labels: Consent Of The Governed, Elections, Elites, Globalism, Rogue Government
0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
...brown-eyed resentment.
Steve Sailer has a second post relating to Maureen Dowd's article on 'blue-eyed greed.'
Maureen Dowd's NYT column "Blue Eyed Greed?" convinced me to sit down and take a vaguely systematic stab at figuring out the ethnic backgrounds of the people whose names come up these days in relation to the universe of American finance.
I first wasted time some time squinting at pictures of Angelo Mozilo and Bernie Madoff trying to figure out what their eye colors were, but then I gave that up as hopelessly literal-minded. Obviously, Dowd (a red-haired Irish Catholic who felt undervalued because she has brown eyes) is using the code terms "blue eyed" and "white bread bankers" to refer to Northern European Protestants. So, it made more sense to look up ancestry, religion, and self-identification directly.
[...]
So, here's what I found.
- The old stereotype that the financial world is run by Northern European Protestants from the Northeast appears outmoded. I came up with six WASPs out of 40, but three were politicians (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm, only one of whom grew up wealthy); one was an accused crook of working class rural origin (Sir Allen Stanford); one was a Southern army sergeant's son (Ken Lewis of Bank of America); and one was from the Northeastern media elite, Daniel Mudd of Freddie Mac, son of newscaster Roger Mudd and a descendant of the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, who has managed to make the family name mud again. (If you want to count Barack Obama as half-WASP, you can make it 6.5.) This 6 out of 40 feels a little low, but that's what I've got.''
(Incidentally, this relates to some of the information posted on the Race/History/Evolution blog a while back, starting with the linked post and continuing in subsequent posts.)
Sailer goes on to examine the ethnic origins of the various figures in top positions in finance, and concludes:
So, what does it add up to?
Well, first, Maureen Dowd's media stereotype about the financial world as dominated by an Old Boy's Network of blond, blue-eyed WASPs is badly out of date. Finance has evolved from an old Relationship Model to a newer Transaction Model about who can make you the most money in a New York minute.''
[Emphasis mine]
Dowd is hardly the only one spreading this popular misconception that some kind of WASP blueblood elite really runs everything; the idea is surprisingly persistent though when challenged, the people who assert this idea as fact never seem to be able to name names and be specific.
Recently when I was challenged on why I write so much on this blog about WASPs (it's divisive, don't you know; it makes others feel excluded, apparently) I gave some thought to it, and I think the main reason why I do focus more on WASPs is because nobody else seems to, at least not in a favorable way; those who do mention WASPs usually do so in a resentful way, referring to them as elites, snobs who lord it over others. How often do any of us hear anything favorable said about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Usually they are mentioned along with terms like 'white-bread' or along with synonyms like 'uptight', 'strait-laced', 'boring' 'bland', and so on.
WASPs are essentially the quintessential White Americans, whether that's viewed as good or as bad -- and these days it's considered mostly bad. Everybody is willing to disparage WASPs and few people even want to claim their WASP ancestry, considering it a non-heritage, an absence of a heritage, sort of a nonentity ethnicity. So who steps up to defend WASPs? I can't think of anybody, off the top of my head, who does so. So I feel compelled to step into the breach.
And the fact is, (and I know that it rankles, for some people) WASPs made this country. The overwhelming majority of the colonists of Massachusetts and Virginia were English. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were English. Some people insist otherwise, but they were English and Protestant for the most part. After a century or so of pro-immigrant, pro-ethnic propaganda, it's become difficult to discuss this fact because many people want it to be otherwise, but WASPs made this country, and put their stamp on it, which others now want to efface and to remove forever. And I think this is an injustice and an affront to the truth, and I won't let it go unchallenged.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a kind of orphaned heritage; nobody wants to claim it or to own it. It's bland, it's empty, it's "dull" and everybody knows WASPs oppressed all those vibrant immigrants who arrived here later. They put up signs saying 'no Irish need apply', (which never happened, but millions are convinced it did in fact happen, nonetheless) or they enslaved blacks, whereas we know that no other ethnicity did so, supposedly, and so on. And of course they were wealthy and educated and snobbish and bland.
One ironic thing that occurs to me as I read the Sailer comments: in determining who is WASP and who is not, the issue is confused because many people of ethnic ancestries saw fit to adopt Anglo-Saxon surnames, and first names, obscuring their actual ethnicity. Why? I mean, if you dislike WASPs as those awful snobs who discriminated against your immigrant ancestors, why adopt a hateful WASP surname and why get cosmetic surgery to make yourself look more WASP-like?
The comments on the earlier Sailer piece on the topic were interesting as usual
One commenter quoted Camille Paglia:
I have been at war with WASPiness since I grew up in upstate New York in the 1950s and early '60s. There is no way to describe the brute social power of the WASP establishment of that period -- the smooth, bland, coded good manners; the hidden past interconnections of families and business associations; the mysterious alliance between chic sororities (overpopulated by blondes) and the most prestigious Presbyterian church in town.
"College at the State University of New York at Binghamton in the revolutionary mid-1960s was a delicious relief for me. The counterculture was booming amid a fantasia of new influences from psychedelia, African-American blues, London Mod, and Andy Warhol's glittery Factory. And at my college there were so many dynamic, super-articulate, politically activist, and screamingly funny Jewish students from downstate New York that I felt the world had changed forever.''
So sorry that Paglia and lots of other ethnics like her felt inferior to WASPs (or those they believed to be WASPy) but that's not my problem. If they were affronted by 'good manners' and 'interconnections', too bad. But that's no reason to carry grudges all these years and to codify your personal shortcomings and resentments into political agendas, as many ethnics do. I don't know whether libertarian Paglia supports open borders or not, but many of her ethnic counterparts do, with a vengeance --- literally. Half of this open borders fanaticism is fueled by people who are envious of WASPs just for being WASPs. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude is what drives much of this multiculturalism and diversity nonsense.
The WASP continues to be the favorite bogeyman of many different groups of people in this country, and even non-WASP Whites get to feel the brunt of it; if you are White, Protestant, and generally of Western European ancestry, you are considered a kind of WASP, regardless of whether you have any English ancestry. And since the WASP has been such a handy scapegoat and whipping boy for the perceived travails of ethnic Americans, he will continue to be pilloried, even if and when the last WASP is six feet under -- unless more of us stand up for ourselves and stop accepting all the blame for whatever grievances the others are nursing.
Steve Sailer has a second post relating to Maureen Dowd's article on 'blue-eyed greed.'
Maureen Dowd's NYT column "Blue Eyed Greed?" convinced me to sit down and take a vaguely systematic stab at figuring out the ethnic backgrounds of the people whose names come up these days in relation to the universe of American finance.
I first wasted time some time squinting at pictures of Angelo Mozilo and Bernie Madoff trying to figure out what their eye colors were, but then I gave that up as hopelessly literal-minded. Obviously, Dowd (a red-haired Irish Catholic who felt undervalued because she has brown eyes) is using the code terms "blue eyed" and "white bread bankers" to refer to Northern European Protestants. So, it made more sense to look up ancestry, religion, and self-identification directly.
[...]
So, here's what I found.
- The old stereotype that the financial world is run by Northern European Protestants from the Northeast appears outmoded. I came up with six WASPs out of 40, but three were politicians (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm, only one of whom grew up wealthy); one was an accused crook of working class rural origin (Sir Allen Stanford); one was a Southern army sergeant's son (Ken Lewis of Bank of America); and one was from the Northeastern media elite, Daniel Mudd of Freddie Mac, son of newscaster Roger Mudd and a descendant of the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, who has managed to make the family name mud again. (If you want to count Barack Obama as half-WASP, you can make it 6.5.) This 6 out of 40 feels a little low, but that's what I've got.''
(Incidentally, this relates to some of the information posted on the Race/History/Evolution blog a while back, starting with the linked post and continuing in subsequent posts.)
Sailer goes on to examine the ethnic origins of the various figures in top positions in finance, and concludes:
So, what does it add up to?
Well, first, Maureen Dowd's media stereotype about the financial world as dominated by an Old Boy's Network of blond, blue-eyed WASPs is badly out of date. Finance has evolved from an old Relationship Model to a newer Transaction Model about who can make you the most money in a New York minute.''
[Emphasis mine]
Dowd is hardly the only one spreading this popular misconception that some kind of WASP blueblood elite really runs everything; the idea is surprisingly persistent though when challenged, the people who assert this idea as fact never seem to be able to name names and be specific.
Recently when I was challenged on why I write so much on this blog about WASPs (it's divisive, don't you know; it makes others feel excluded, apparently) I gave some thought to it, and I think the main reason why I do focus more on WASPs is because nobody else seems to, at least not in a favorable way; those who do mention WASPs usually do so in a resentful way, referring to them as elites, snobs who lord it over others. How often do any of us hear anything favorable said about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Usually they are mentioned along with terms like 'white-bread' or along with synonyms like 'uptight', 'strait-laced', 'boring' 'bland', and so on.
WASPs are essentially the quintessential White Americans, whether that's viewed as good or as bad -- and these days it's considered mostly bad. Everybody is willing to disparage WASPs and few people even want to claim their WASP ancestry, considering it a non-heritage, an absence of a heritage, sort of a nonentity ethnicity. So who steps up to defend WASPs? I can't think of anybody, off the top of my head, who does so. So I feel compelled to step into the breach.
And the fact is, (and I know that it rankles, for some people) WASPs made this country. The overwhelming majority of the colonists of Massachusetts and Virginia were English. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were English. Some people insist otherwise, but they were English and Protestant for the most part. After a century or so of pro-immigrant, pro-ethnic propaganda, it's become difficult to discuss this fact because many people want it to be otherwise, but WASPs made this country, and put their stamp on it, which others now want to efface and to remove forever. And I think this is an injustice and an affront to the truth, and I won't let it go unchallenged.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a kind of orphaned heritage; nobody wants to claim it or to own it. It's bland, it's empty, it's "dull" and everybody knows WASPs oppressed all those vibrant immigrants who arrived here later. They put up signs saying 'no Irish need apply', (which never happened, but millions are convinced it did in fact happen, nonetheless) or they enslaved blacks, whereas we know that no other ethnicity did so, supposedly, and so on. And of course they were wealthy and educated and snobbish and bland.
One ironic thing that occurs to me as I read the Sailer comments: in determining who is WASP and who is not, the issue is confused because many people of ethnic ancestries saw fit to adopt Anglo-Saxon surnames, and first names, obscuring their actual ethnicity. Why? I mean, if you dislike WASPs as those awful snobs who discriminated against your immigrant ancestors, why adopt a hateful WASP surname and why get cosmetic surgery to make yourself look more WASP-like?
The comments on the earlier Sailer piece on the topic were interesting as usual
One commenter quoted Camille Paglia:
I have been at war with WASPiness since I grew up in upstate New York in the 1950s and early '60s. There is no way to describe the brute social power of the WASP establishment of that period -- the smooth, bland, coded good manners; the hidden past interconnections of families and business associations; the mysterious alliance between chic sororities (overpopulated by blondes) and the most prestigious Presbyterian church in town.
"College at the State University of New York at Binghamton in the revolutionary mid-1960s was a delicious relief for me. The counterculture was booming amid a fantasia of new influences from psychedelia, African-American blues, London Mod, and Andy Warhol's glittery Factory. And at my college there were so many dynamic, super-articulate, politically activist, and screamingly funny Jewish students from downstate New York that I felt the world had changed forever.''
So sorry that Paglia and lots of other ethnics like her felt inferior to WASPs (or those they believed to be WASPy) but that's not my problem. If they were affronted by 'good manners' and 'interconnections', too bad. But that's no reason to carry grudges all these years and to codify your personal shortcomings and resentments into political agendas, as many ethnics do. I don't know whether libertarian Paglia supports open borders or not, but many of her ethnic counterparts do, with a vengeance --- literally. Half of this open borders fanaticism is fueled by people who are envious of WASPs just for being WASPs. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude is what drives much of this multiculturalism and diversity nonsense.
The WASP continues to be the favorite bogeyman of many different groups of people in this country, and even non-WASP Whites get to feel the brunt of it; if you are White, Protestant, and generally of Western European ancestry, you are considered a kind of WASP, regardless of whether you have any English ancestry. And since the WASP has been such a handy scapegoat and whipping boy for the perceived travails of ethnic Americans, he will continue to be pilloried, even if and when the last WASP is six feet under -- unless more of us stand up for ourselves and stop accepting all the blame for whatever grievances the others are nursing.
Labels: Anti White Racism, Elites, Ellis Island Syndrome, Ethnic Division, Stereotyping, Wasps
0 comment Sunday, August 3, 2014 | admin
From the 24Ahead blog, we read that Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has testified in favor of ''comprehensive immigration reform'', which in English is 'amnesty for illegal aliens.'' This is no surprise, and it will also be unsurprising when the liberals/leftists continue to identify him as a ''right-winger''. Will any of the avid Fox News cult members finally realize that Fox is not a ''conservative'' news source? And that Murdoch is not on the side of majority White Americans?
Murdoch, with his extensive media holdings and concomitant power is almost the living example of what I envision in my mind when I think about the globalist elites. He and his soul-mate Soros. Speaking of the devil, there was. from 1997, this interesting article about Soros, linked on the WTPOTUS blog recently.
He and Murdoch seem to worship at the same altar on the subject of immigration.
From the discussion of the Soros article:
THE EMMA LAZARUS FUND
It might strike a person as odd that one of America�s richest men would decide to take a leading role in calling for a more tolerant, open attitude toward immigration. But when one learns the man is George Soros, perhaps this is not surprising. Soros, profiled earlier this month on the popular television newsmagazine 60 Minutes, has a reputation for being a tough businessman, but also one of the world�s leading philanthropists. Until recently, he was best known for giving money to help promote open societies in Eastern Europe.
But recently Soros chose to tackle the issue of immigration. Soros knows first hand the importance of an open immigration policy. He is, after all, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust and knows that for many, the right to immigrate can be a matter of life and death.
Recently Soros created the Emma Lazarus Fund, an initiative of Soros� Open Society Institute. Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century Jewish-American poet whose famous words from her poem "The New Colossus" welcoming impoverished immigrants to American shores are on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. The poem, beginning with the famous words "Give me your tired, your poor�" is one of the most famous in American literature and is now synonymous with America�s welcoming historical attitude to immigrants.
According to Soros, the Fund has the following goals:
"First, in appropriate instances, it will pay the cost of applying for citizenship for legal immigrants who wish to become naturalized Americans; second, it will assist community and social service organizations that help legal immigrants by providing English-language instruction and other services that help them qualify for citizenship; finally, the Fund will assist organizations conducting efforts, both in the courts and through public education campaigns, on the issues of naturalization and immigration."
Soros does not intend the Fund to promote open borders. Rather, he says the issue is one of justice � equal treatment and the rule of law, regardless of immigration status.''
Compare the above with the comments of Murdoch on immigration, quoted in the 24Ahead blog entry:
''It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people," testified Murdoch. "Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged "the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years," which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that "there are better ways to spend our money."
"A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base," said Murdoch.
He continued, "According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years."
One thing these men have in common is that they are both men of no fixed allegiances; they breathe the rarefied air of those above common loyalties such as the rest of us share. Neither of them seem to have loyalty to any particular country, though they are happy to profit from, and use, and manipulate Western countries.
Soros is the darling of the left, and their biggest money patron, while many on the ''right'' think that Murdoch is on our side. It's clear that Soros, Murdoch, and the rest of the lesser-known elites are on nobody's side but their own. Even the illegal immigrants they are advocating for and lobbying for are not of any real concern to them, merely weapons to be used or fodder for some plan to benefit themselves and their own little group.
Murdoch, with his extensive media holdings and concomitant power is almost the living example of what I envision in my mind when I think about the globalist elites. He and his soul-mate Soros. Speaking of the devil, there was. from 1997, this interesting article about Soros, linked on the WTPOTUS blog recently.
He and Murdoch seem to worship at the same altar on the subject of immigration.
From the discussion of the Soros article:
THE EMMA LAZARUS FUND
It might strike a person as odd that one of America�s richest men would decide to take a leading role in calling for a more tolerant, open attitude toward immigration. But when one learns the man is George Soros, perhaps this is not surprising. Soros, profiled earlier this month on the popular television newsmagazine 60 Minutes, has a reputation for being a tough businessman, but also one of the world�s leading philanthropists. Until recently, he was best known for giving money to help promote open societies in Eastern Europe.
But recently Soros chose to tackle the issue of immigration. Soros knows first hand the importance of an open immigration policy. He is, after all, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust and knows that for many, the right to immigrate can be a matter of life and death.
Recently Soros created the Emma Lazarus Fund, an initiative of Soros� Open Society Institute. Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century Jewish-American poet whose famous words from her poem "The New Colossus" welcoming impoverished immigrants to American shores are on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. The poem, beginning with the famous words "Give me your tired, your poor�" is one of the most famous in American literature and is now synonymous with America�s welcoming historical attitude to immigrants.
According to Soros, the Fund has the following goals:
"First, in appropriate instances, it will pay the cost of applying for citizenship for legal immigrants who wish to become naturalized Americans; second, it will assist community and social service organizations that help legal immigrants by providing English-language instruction and other services that help them qualify for citizenship; finally, the Fund will assist organizations conducting efforts, both in the courts and through public education campaigns, on the issues of naturalization and immigration."
Soros does not intend the Fund to promote open borders. Rather, he says the issue is one of justice � equal treatment and the rule of law, regardless of immigration status.''
Compare the above with the comments of Murdoch on immigration, quoted in the 24Ahead blog entry:
''It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people," testified Murdoch. "Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged "the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years," which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that "there are better ways to spend our money."
"A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base," said Murdoch.
He continued, "According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years."
One thing these men have in common is that they are both men of no fixed allegiances; they breathe the rarefied air of those above common loyalties such as the rest of us share. Neither of them seem to have loyalty to any particular country, though they are happy to profit from, and use, and manipulate Western countries.
Soros is the darling of the left, and their biggest money patron, while many on the ''right'' think that Murdoch is on our side. It's clear that Soros, Murdoch, and the rest of the lesser-known elites are on nobody's side but their own. Even the illegal immigrants they are advocating for and lobbying for are not of any real concern to them, merely weapons to be used or fodder for some plan to benefit themselves and their own little group.
Labels: Amnesty, Controlled Media, Corporate Elites, Elites, Globalism, Immigration, Open Borders
0 comment Wednesday, May 7, 2014 | admin
I can't fault much of what Jared Taylor says in this piece on Why Obama Will Win. I suppose my problem with the piece has to do with his conclusions. Overall, I get the impression that Mr. Taylor believes that an Obama presidency will, at worst, be ineffectual and bumbling, that it will be a failure in the sense of not being able to deliver on promises made.
If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:
''It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.''
Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:
'2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.'
For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.
It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.
I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.
However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.
The discussion that follows is a lengthy and interesting one. I expect many of you have already read it. If not, click on the link and read it. There are a few useless comments but many good ones.
The following comment seems to be along the lines of what I have been thinking since the Obama speech in Berlin:
I met a woman with high political connections in this country. She stated flatly that they want Obama as a President because then nobody in the world would criticize us because we would have collectively put on his racial armor. And our countries actions would not be called out because that country or person would then be guilty of racism.
So they apparently think they will be needing this heavy armor for what they have in mind next. This reasoning frightened me�''
It makes sense, in a crazy way. I can imagine our elite masters thinking this way. Judging by the insane policies they are forcing on us, it make a perverse kind of sense.
I don't doubt that all the decades of conditioning of the American masses are meant to bring us to the day when we are willing to submit to being led by minorities, because this is the only way the global agenda can be implemented. And if this one-world agenda is to succeed, we can't have a White male at the helm nor a White dominant majority in this country. We have to be humbled and brought down, leveled with the rest of the world, apparently.
Not so many years ago, I would have scoffed at this idea, but things have become so crazy in this world that few bizarre explanations seem implausible when trying to understand it.
If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.
If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:
''It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.''
Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:
'2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.'
For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.
It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.
I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.
However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.
The discussion that follows is a lengthy and interesting one. I expect many of you have already read it. If not, click on the link and read it. There are a few useless comments but many good ones.
The following comment seems to be along the lines of what I have been thinking since the Obama speech in Berlin:
I met a woman with high political connections in this country. She stated flatly that they want Obama as a President because then nobody in the world would criticize us because we would have collectively put on his racial armor. And our countries actions would not be called out because that country or person would then be guilty of racism.
So they apparently think they will be needing this heavy armor for what they have in mind next. This reasoning frightened me�''
It makes sense, in a crazy way. I can imagine our elite masters thinking this way. Judging by the insane policies they are forcing on us, it make a perverse kind of sense.
I don't doubt that all the decades of conditioning of the American masses are meant to bring us to the day when we are willing to submit to being led by minorities, because this is the only way the global agenda can be implemented. And if this one-world agenda is to succeed, we can't have a White male at the helm nor a White dominant majority in this country. We have to be humbled and brought down, leveled with the rest of the world, apparently.
Not so many years ago, I would have scoffed at this idea, but things have become so crazy in this world that few bizarre explanations seem implausible when trying to understand it.
If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.
Labels: Elites, Ethnic Conflicts, Globalism, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates