Polite Kid

A while back when the subject of 'Favorite People on the Right' came up, among my choices, I mentioned Lou Dobbs, mostly because of the work he does on bringing immigration issues to the attention of many Americans. He also does great work reporting on the sovereignty issues, like the plans for a North American Union.
However occasionally he says things which indicate he still has a very liberal consciousness in certain ways. For example on this evening's show, he went into a rant about the latest Center for Immigration Studies report; he thinks the report conflates legal and illegal immigration, and he was very adamant that it's illegal immigration that is the problem. Of course that point of view, in my opinion, is one that is harmful to the cause of America, promoting the rather legalistic and simplistic view that the only problem with the millions of illegals here is that they don't have the correct paperwork. That viewpoint denies the importance of culture, demographics, and a number of other important considerations. But I'll just quote Lou's rant, and let you judge for yourselves. Dobbs introduces Bill Tucker, who reports on the CIS study:
DOBBS: Well, the presidential candidates in both political parties have now discovered that illegal immigration is a critical and important issue for Americans and anyone who doubts that illegal immigration is a tremendous and rapidly escalating crisis need only look at the most recent study of Census Bureau numbers. That study shows this nation is experiencing the highest level of immigration legal and illegal in three generations. And as Bill Tucker now reports more than half of the 10 million people arriving in the United States over the past seven years have arrived here illegally.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): No other nation is as welcoming to immigrants as the United States. Thirty-eight million people living in the country are immigrants. That's one out of every eight Americans. Not since the days of Ellis Island have immigrants represented so much of our population, but not all immigrants are here legally.
One-third of them are here unlawfully and since 2000, more than half of those entering the United States have been illegal aliens. The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed data collected by the Census Bureau in March of this year. The analysis is revealing and raises some tough questions. STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: When we looked at rates of poverty, health insurance coverage and welfare use, it reminds us that when people say all that matters is a willing worker and a willing employer. That's not all that matters. There are many other things.
TUCKER: Such as the impact on poverty rates, social services, health care and schools.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things that has been going on in a lot of schools is a lot of overcrowding. And what we found was that in the last 20 years immigration accounts for all of the increase in school enrollment in the United States.
TUCKER: Twenty percent of illegal immigrants lack any health care insurance and all immigrants account for 71 percent of the uninsured since 1989. While immigrant households are more likely to have someone in the house with a job, the poverty rate is sharply higher in immigrant households than it is in native born households and one-third of immigrant households use it at least one welfare program. The primary reason for these problems comes down to a poor education. Since 2000, 35.5 percent of immigrants never finished high school. They are fit for only low wage, low skill jobs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that represents a huge shift in historic trends. Thirty years ago immigrants coming to this country were more likely to have a college degree than native born Americans. Lou, today that is clearly not the case.
DOBBS: Now who did this study?
TUCKER: The Center for Immigration Study looked at data provided by the Census Bureau, March...
DOBBS: Well I have to say that what I resent here on the part of the Census Bureau and the center is this conflation again of immigrants and illegal immigrants. Frankly, as we bring in people lawfully into this country, as a matter of public policy, I don't think any of us should care one way or the other about their education level, any of that, or the number of programs, social programs that are being employed.
The issue here is illegal immigration. This government, this federal government, and each of its agencies refuses to deal with the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and we should never be a part of that conflation and that purposeful obfuscation on the part of those who are pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-massive illegal immigration at any cost to the United States.
Those are dramatic numbers. But again, I just -- I'm deeply concerned that this Census Bureau, this federal government is not making a distinction between legal and lawful immigrants. Of course, more than two million people entering the country lawfully every year. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.''
[Emphasis mine]
Now, what immediately raised my hackles is that Dobbs says that we shouldn't be concerned about the low educational levels of immigrants or about their usage of social programs, as long as they are legal immigrants. However he offers no argument to justify his views on that issue.
He says that it is the proponents of amnesty who are purposely lumping together legal and illegal immigration. In a sense, I suppose that is correct; the open borders proponents generally try to tar any restrictionist with the 'anti-immigrant' brush, implying that restrictionists in general are bigots who hate immigrants ''just because''; just because they are different, or just because most immigrants nowadays, as the study confirms, are from third-world countries.
But most restrictionists play into the hands of these people by protesting loudly 'I'm not opposed to immigrants or immigration; I'm only opposed to illegal immigration!' This of course suits the open borders crowd just fine; they've made the restrictionist become defensive, and act like a cornered animal, and most importantly, they've managed to extract from the restrictionist the statement that he or she supports 'any immigration just as long as it's LEGAL.'
So there you go; the open borders crowd has gotten a blank check from you; you've said that as long as immigrants are here legally, with the correct documents, you are happy to welcome them, and you can raise no objection to their being here, because they are LEGAL, and you've just said that legality is the only issue with immigration.
So I immediately doubt the seriousness of any restrictionist who says the 'as long as it's legal' line. Now, I haven't heard Lou Dobbs say this so plainly in the past, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
I have often wondered why CNN, which is the most politically correct, leftist, open-borders, one-world, news channel, would employ Lou Dobbs, if he really were such a staunch opponent of one of their cherished leftist/globalist causes.
If his rant today accurately represents his beliefs on immigration, that legality is all that is at issue, then he is simply another variety of liberal, and not the hard-line immigration restrictionist as embodied in his image.
His point that the quality of the immigrants we take in, as indicated in their educational level and their welfare usage, is not a valid concern, is also troubling.
Suppose our sneaky elites somehow manage to increase legal immigration levels substantially, as would have been the case with the failed amnesty bill. Suppose we start taking in 5 or 10 million legal immigrants each year. Will all our troubles evaporate? Obviously not. The quality of the immigrants we receive is all-important. If the immigrants come here legally, and are granted citizenship quickly as seems to be the trend as everybody frets over the poor immigrants being forced to 'wait too long' for citizenship, then they are here to stay, as are their progeny, forever. Once upon a time, when we actually had standards for our immigrants, that was not such a problem, but now, we allow people from countries where good record-keeping is not part of their culture, and we thus have no knowledge of their history: are they law-abiding? Do they have communicable or hereditary diseases? The quality of the immigrants that we now accept is not comparable to that of past generations of immigrants. Quality does matter, as much as quantity. To say that a legal document is all that's needed to fit into our society, and that anybody with the right paperwork is good enough to join our American family is naive at best, and deluded at worst.
Culture matters. Genetics matters. Educational level and skills matter. Compatibility with our country matters. Attitude matters.
In all of the above areas, the immigrants we receive at present, the legal ones as much as the illegals, don't measure up.
The people who are touting Lou Dobbs as a possible independent candidate for the Presidency are naive; his tough-talking persona does not mean that he is anything more than another media personality, whose restrictionist persona may be deceiving.

Labels: American Identity, Illegal Immigration, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders

The recent story about the incidents in Dublin, wherein five people were seriously injured, has been mentioned on a number of pro-White blogs. When I saw the story that appeared last week, the fact that it was not picked up by any of the newspapers online except for the Irish Herald, made me somewhat wary. Then when I looked more closely, I realized that the incident or incidents were not current news, but in fact happened last October.
''TWO teenagers have appeared in court on multiple assault and other charges following a series of violent attacks in Dublin city centre that left five people seriously injured.
Nero Bobby Omoruyi (19) and Damilara Bammodu (18) are the first people to be charged in connection with the series of attacks on a night of violence in Temple Bar last year.
One man, a Dublin DJ, suffered serious head injuries when he was set upon by a group of African nationals in the incident last October.''
The dismaying part of the more recent story, quoted above, is the fact that bail was granted to these two 'men.' It seems that violent attacks are not taken terribly seriously in Ireland, or perhaps not when the attackers themselves are from one of the perpetual victim groups.
It's been interesting to read here and there how surprised many Americans are to hear of many Africans and other nonwhites in Ireland. Unfortunately many Americans have a glowing stereotype of Ireland in their minds, and even if they have visited Ireland, maybe they've only seen the idyllic tourist destinations and not the grittier side of life in the cities.
When I was first in Ireland some years ago, I was a little surprised that there were more than a few Chinese restaurants, owned and staffed by Chinese people, in Dublin. There were also a number of African 'students', and I put the word 'students' in scare quotes because they all looked too old to be students, back in the times when university students were generally young, not middle-aged. There were also a smaller number of Hindus, some of whom owned retail businesses in the city. But 'diversity' was beginning to establish itself in Ireland, or at least in Dublin, then. Actually when I was first there, I was shocked at how cosmopolitan Dublin was; it was much more so than the large American city I was living in at the time.
Most people in America think of the Irish as being very nationalistic and ethnocentric, especially in regard to their history with England. But I've been surprised to see, over the years, how very far left Ireland has veered, socially and politically. The old stereotype, so beloved of many Irish-Americans, is of Ireland dominated by the (once-conservative) Church, and of a very socially conservative culture. This was already a thing of the past when I first went to Ireland.
It seems living in a racially homogeneous environment tends to lead to incredible naivete on racial matters; we've seen it in this country during the last presidential election, and in the tendency of such areas to be prone to social engineering experiments. I am thinking of places like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pleading for more 'diversity' and Iowa's Tom Vilsack and his diversity-mongering. People who live in non-diverse places are babes in the woods, or sheep for the shearing, when it comes to matters of diversity.
It seems that the Irish have had a tendency to sympathize with minority groups; a history of feeling persecuted or oppressed tends to make people very liberal. Such people tend to identify with others who seem to be put-upon, or who perceive themselves as such.
In the 1991 Irish movie 'The Commitments', young Irish musicians (or aspiring musicians) form a band to bring 'soul music' to Dublin. Today we'd call some of the characters 'wiggers' in their attempts to emulate black singers and musicians. In fact, I remember a line in the movie, where the band members say 'say it loud; I'm black and I'm proud'. Of course it's played for laughs, as these very White Irish youths speak that line. But I honestly think it reflects some actual identification. I've heard this saying before from some Irish people: ''The Irish are the [n-words] of Europe.''
We have a lot of young people -- and some not so young -- who adopt a similar attitude; they perceive blackness as being the last word in 'cool', and they imagine themselves to be victims in some way, so they claim solidarity with blacks and other minorities. Many in the leftist counterculture of the 1960s and 70s believed that they were spiritually black or something.
Ireland has its share of multicult ideologues; just see this article about how ''Multiculturalism is nothing new'' in Ireland. The writer would have us believe that there have always been blacks in Ireland.
''The recent referendum in Ireland, which denies the automatic right of citizenship to anyone born in Ireland to non-Irish parents, is a retrograde step that overturns the central arguments that form Ireland�s claim to nationhood.
The United Irish movement sought to replace any spurious ideas of Irishness as merely a matter of descent with the concept of citizenship. No matter what your ethnic origins were, you were part of the country and had the rights of a citizen. Of course, that the so-called 'Republic of Ireland� has few qualms about jettisoning such republican baggage will hardly be a surprise to Irish republicans.
The vote in the referendum is born of fear � an irrational fear, fuelled by the less�responsible sectors of the media, that Ireland is being swamped by immigration, that Ireland�s traditional culture is under threat from alien forces and alien people with alien ways who will undermine Ireland and what it means to be Irish.
The decision to hold the referendum is a cynical exploitation of vulgar prejudice by the Irish government. The Irish establishment have learned their lessons from the British well.
Yet the idea that Ireland is a uniformly white and homogeneous nation doesn�t stand up to the historical evidence. In fact Ireland has never been a monoculture. Ireland�s original Neolithic inhabitants may well have comprised a number of diverse groups. Since then English, Welsh, Norman and Scottish settlers, Vikings and Huguenots � already mixed populations in themselves � have added to Ireland�s mix.
There have been Jewish people in Ireland since the 1400s and Africans were brought over by the Vikings. A recent study by Bill Hart shows large numbers of black Africans in 18th-century Ireland; Dublin had the largest black population of any European city outside London. Documentary evidence is there to show that many of them intermarried and interbred with the Irish population. Racists beware: your own family tree may have some interesting surprises for you. Your bigotry may be directed against yourself.''
Read the rest if you have a strong stomach, but there's nothing there that you haven't heard before from some fulminating lefty.
All the countries of Christendom are now under the control of such deluded people, and now we are seeing the fruits of the delusion. Too bad that few have heeded the warnings of saner people, or paid attention to the examples set by the chaos in the countries where multiculturalism was farther advanced.
I wish the Irish people well, but I wonder if they will see the error of the multiculturalist experiment before it's too late.
If not, I think the trouble that will inevitably follow will be far worse than the age-old 'Troubles' with the British.

Labels: Diversity, Ethnocentrism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism

Apropos of our discussion the other day about the roots of the counterculture and also the subject of advertising propaganda, I was looking through some old images and found some interesting ones.
The first is an Insurance Company ad, above, from 1952. The text is not legible in this smaller-sized image, so I will quote it here:
There are moral alternatives to war. We do have a choice. We can choose plowshares over swords...and thereby diminish the danger of a final and all-destroying war.
Most of the world's people -- nearly two-thirds of the human race -- are hungry. Remove this hunger and we remove most of the explosive possibilities in the world.
We, here in America, have crossed the threshold into the world of plenty. In the past ten years we have had twice as much new food as new people -- and our population has grown at a rate faster than that of India!
This American pattern of plenty gives us a platform from which we, in decency and humility, can help build a true brotherhood of man, living together peacefully in a prosperous world. Now, for the first time, we can help a hungry world feed itself. We will achieve peace only if we carry out this moral responsibility -- wholeheartedly, with the same vigor with which we have waged wars. It is up to us.
If we start now -- in politics, in economics, in social organization -- we can make abundance blossom for all the world.
Let us embark on the crusade toward creating PLENTY -- Pattern for Peace.''
The above is said to be ''From a recent address by Murray D. Lincoln, President of Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.''
I can understand how, in 1952, war-wearied Americans might be eager for some proposal or policy which would guarantee that there would be 'no more wars.' But is it true that poverty and hunger cause all wars, or that 'feeding the world' would guarantee peace? Did World War II happen because of poverty or want? Or World War I?
So, since this ad was printed, we've had more than half a century of trying out these utopian do-gooder policies. I wonder how many billions we've spent on 'foreign aid' or hunger relief efforts via the UN since then? And how much good has it done? Have our efforts and our dollars ended hunger or brought stability and peace?
Look at the picture in the ad. Back in 1952, few Americans would have proposed bringing the world here for us to feed them in our land, but does the picture not seem to imply that we will all cohabit together in America? The White man at the plow looks as though he's the one in harness to do all the hard work.
This picture, with its 'we are the world' motif, reminds me very much of the picture below, which actually appeared 9 years later, on the cover of the April Fool's Day 1961 version of Saturday Evening Post.

Everybody knows Norman Rockwell as the quintessential American heartland painter. He was particularly known for his magazine covers, most notably the Saturday Evening Post covers. We always associate him with rather corny middle American nostalgia, with his images of freckle-faced, red-headed boys and girls, the kind who used to be called 'all-American boys' and girls. (Today, of course, Barack Obama and the exotics who appear in our commercials are held up as truly American.) But when I first saw this illustration, called 'The Golden Rule', by Rockwell, I was rather taken aback, because it seemed so out of step with the work we associate with him. I wondered if it was not painted during the early 70s, when the diversity obsession set in. But no, it was painted in 1961, during an era in which America was still very American. Remember, the 1965 Immigration Act was still four years in the future when that picture was painted.
And of course, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the Golden Rule, but at some point, the politically correct commandment became do unto The Other at the expense of your own. Open your gates and doors wide to the entire world, no questions asked.
Here we are, 47 years on, and America is starting to look very much like that 'Golden Rule' painting, with those famous 'all-American' Rockwell faces surrounded by people from the four corners of the globe. Was this a prophetic painting? Or a prescriptive one, like the Farm Bureau Insurance Ad?
Was this 'pattern for peace' or a pattern for PC?
In any case, it seems this campaign to change our thinking about ourselves and our role in the world has been going on for a long time; it's only accelerated recently and become more obvious to us.

Labels: Advertising, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, One World, Political Correctness

Yet another in the endless 'Surrender, Dorothy' series from the media. Today a headline trumpets
Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'
'Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.''
There are some depressing comments at the Houston Chronicle blog, the usual melting pot drivel, but the real prize comments come from Free Republic. Some samples of the FReeper wit and wisdom:
''When you have an immigrant group build up enough strength to "go forth and multiply" the best looking chicks are going to go for the guys with the best jobs, and there goes the old ethnic purity.
Even by Harry Truman's time it was common for an American to have half a dozen ethnicities lurking in the ol'woodpile.
Their Anglo-Chokras are struggling to present themselves AND they will! More than one Mexican momma is going to cry herself to sleep seeing that "the blond girl" has her little boy!''
And:
That Blond Girl just might be one of my GrandDaughters.
Blond Hair, Yes.
Blue Eyes, Yes.
1/4 Mestizo
Last name of Galvez.
Point well taken.
Many of the young people today are not so hungup on the whole Race thing.
People need to look past all the superficial stuff and concentrate on the person Values.
19 posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 5:05:58 PM by SwedeBoy2''
So the clueless and the colorblind are heard from.
Next, the inevitable 'we're doomed' posts, always popular everywhere this subject is discussed:
''Looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos.
It was over years ago for Texas...
In fact, you're likely seeing the last White Governor of Texas...Eventually, the illegals will turn the Alamo into a medical clinic for illegal aliens.
No joke... ''
The first Mr. Clueless-and-colorblind returns to dispense more of his wisdom:
BTW, I'm aware that there's a tribe that used to own bunch of territory running from Kansas down to Waco ~ they eventually lost even their very dimished [sic] reservation during theCivil War.
They've outmarried to the degree that 'blond" is normal ~
BTW, everybody knows how they use the term "Anglo" West of the Mississippi. Still, if I were you and had any "anglo blood" I'd take my dirk and cut a hole in my arm to let it leach out. You just don't want any of that stuff ya' know. Scotts and Sa'ami are best by test!''
And there's more if you are in a masochistic mood.
I think that sadly, the FReepers pretty much represent a cross-section of the Republican voters of this country, and you can see how little ethnoloyalty or even basic knowledge of American history, genetics, culture, or anything else they possess. It was not always so on that Forum.
One side note here: it is disheartening to see how often, even on the 'realist' blogs, men will indicate that they are OK with outmarrying amongst Mexicans, Asians, and so on. And yet women are said to be more likely to outmarry. I don't know how it is possible to be an ethnopatriot and think outmarriage is OK if the women chosen as partners are of certain groups. You either are loyal to your people and your family line, or you are not. There is no kinda-sorta there.
Reading various blogs and forums, I am starting to think the doomsayers may be right -- or maybe it's just that their attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question becomes, are these people salvageable? Is it realistic to think that we can 'reach out' and pull these people from the demographic conflagration that is America? Or must they be written off as basically ineducable and irredeemable? Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people. So these guys must be very blissful.
Maybe there is one in a thousand, or one in five thousand, that will one day get it. The rest, who do get it but who are total pessimists, will simply resign themselves bitterly to what they see as an inevitable fate.
I think we have to soldier on without some of these people who will never 'get it', because it is a waste of effort and an exercise in futility to think we can 'wake everybody up.' To use an analogy that I've used before, I recall the story that when Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode out on that night in April, 1775, to warn the Middlesex folk that 'the Regulars' were coming, many people were angered at being awakened. Rather than wanting to help spread the alarm, or to prepare to defend themselves and their neighbors, they preferred to sleep on. They'd rather not know what was happening. I've often wondered why.
I suppose it is easier to cynically pronounce that we're powerless and the situation is hopeless, rather than having to roll up one's sleeves and prepare.

Labels: Demographic Warfare, Ethnoloyalty, Mass Immigration, Outmarriage, Race Replacement

Jean Raspail Speaks of "Big Other"
Jean Raspail is interviewed for French TV about his book, 'Camp of the Saints.' The phrase 'Big Other' is his pun on the familiar 'Big Brother', and is the title of the new preface to his book.
You can view the video at GalliaWatch, where Tiberge offers excerpts translated into English. If your French is good enough, you can watch the complete interviews at the links on GalliaWatch.
From her excerpts:
''And The Camp of the Saints ends badly� badly or well, according to your opinion. There are four hundred pages. Imagine all the questions it raises in our minds - on a social level, on the national level, but also on the inner level of each person. What do you do? If you allow in such a mass, what happens to the country? If you don't allow them in where is your Christian charity? Where is your pity, and many other things like that�
[...]
If civilizations have disappeared it is because they were engulfed by the tidal wave of the more advanced newcomers. With us, the situation is the reverse. We have an old civilization in Europe, in France, and we find ourselves before gigantic masses of people. Europe does not have a billion people, yet we face hundreds of thousands, millions, billions. Logically, we should be forced to defend ourselves, but how?
[...]
In truth, charity does not consist of opening our doors and our arms to invaders. No, it does not consist in returning the flags of Lepanto, as Paul VI did, to the Turks, who have no knowledge of repentance. It does not consist of kissing the Koran as Pope John-Paul II did, in an unfortunate gesture.
No, it does not consist in offering lands of our old Christian country, as the French bishops have done, to build mosques or worse, to accept the transformation of churches into mosques. That is the opposite of charity, a turning away from charity; it is inversion, subversion, corruption.''
Read the rest at the link.

Labels: Demographic Warfare, France, Globalism, Mass Immigration, National Identity, Population Replacement

According to this story which appeared in the UK Telegraph some 10 months ago:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote.
[...]
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
[...]
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended � even if this wasn't its main purpose � to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
[...]
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. "Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. ''
[Emphasis mine]
I was not blogging at the time this story broke last year, and I was not reading political blogs in general, so I have no idea how much discussion this generated among the right-wing bloggers. It should have generated a lot of anger but little surprise.
I think a lot of us have long believed that this whole 'enrichment by enforced diversity' was not simply a method of dealing with spontaneous demographic change, as our ruling classes imply, but a deliberate and malicious policy. I've said that this whole demographic disaster that is being visited on us was either done through abysmal incompetence or deliberate malice. I don't think our ruling classes are as incompetent as they are malicious, or hostile to us, the people of Western Christendom.
I particularly noticed the phrase in this article about 'rubbing the Right's noses in diversity.' Very telling. So at least one of their convoluted motivations was a vengeful attitude toward ethnoconservative citizens of our countries: ''Those xenophobic bigots don't like diversity? Well, we'll make sure they get it, good and hard.''
The left, at least the true-believing, 'mad dog' liberals as CWNY terms them, have at least as much malice and loathing towards White, especially Christian fellow-citizens as they have love for Diversity. Diversity is just one more weapon, one more battering ram, to be used against us. For these unhinged lefties, it isn't about love for poor downtrodden Third Worlders, it's about hate for their own neighbors.

Labels: Celebrate Diversity, Demographics, Enforced Diversity, Mass Immigration, Treason

I've said before that I believe a third party is sorely needed, given the fact that the two main parties in our country share similar ideas about immigration and multiculturalism. Both parties generally are very careful to limit any criticism of immigration to the illegal variety. This is just not honest, and it is just one more form of political correctness and obfuscation of the truth, as with all forms of political correctness.
Both parties support multiculturalism and the 'proposition nation' idea, and a more or less open-ended commitment to perpetual immigration.
A while back I said that I had hopes for the American Third Position Party. I think those hopes were misplaced, after reading this piece and its comment thread a couple of times.
''... we need an immigration policy that makes sense and that protects American jobs.
Before we go any further, it is important for me to make a few points. It is not a bad thing that people want to come to this nation from another country. A lot of people that want to come to the United States are really hard working and have really solid character. This nation has a long tradition of immigrants arriving to build a better life here. At different times this country will need different levels of immigration, but we will always need new immigrants. People on one side of a border are not more "valuable" than people on another side of a border. There is a reason why our founding fathers believed that "all men are created equal". In every nation on earth there are really wonderful people. We should love all men, women and children no matter where they were born and no matter what they look like. God created us all and He loves us all dearly.
This is just more of the kind of thing G.W. Bush was fond of saying, and I am sure various Democrats have said it many times as well.
Before someone says that I am being a purist or ''letting the perfect be the enemy of the good'', please don't.
The hour is late for us; we don't have time to dally with the PC approach and the egalitarian platitudes.
I am sure others will do what they will, but I am crossing A3P off my list of possibilities. I am sure they would not care to have my support in any case.

Labels: Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Proposition Nation

This story and a later one are interesting in a couple of ways. First, though, we all knew, those of us who care about these things, that this was a deliberate plan. We knew that it was being carried out contrary to the wishes of the people of the UK, just as the same kind of thing is going on here and in all Western countries. An excerpt:
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.

Labels: Ethnic Cleansing, France, Free Speech, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Tyranny, Uk

I've just come from a forum where a group of people, mostly British, were discussing the question of whether to emigrate from their country (as the media have been telling us they are doing), or to stay and try to defend and preserve their country, or what may be left of it after decades of mass immigration and multicultural madness.
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?

Labels: Demographics, Ethnic Solidarity, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, White Flight

...and apathy?
A: I don't know and I don't care.
Okay, it's an old joke. But it seems relevant to my post today.
Earlier I happened to be watching a show on BBC America with a friend. The show was 'How Clean Is Your House?' (I confess, I am fascinated with these cleaning shows). In the episode, Aggie and Kim, the ''cleaning gurus" were in the Tower Hamlets borough of London helping to fight an infestation of rats. Apparently rats are increasing substantially in numbers in the UK. I guess that's what a huge increase in urban crowding plus squalid conditions brings.
But during the course of the program, Aggie and Kim visited a school in the area, and I was so shocked by the fact that I saw not one White British face in the classroom (except for those of Kim and Aggie, and maybe, possibly, the teacher) that I remarked aloud to my friend "There's not one British child there! That's the future of Britain.'
Granted, London, or one area of London does not represent all of Britain, just as New York or L.A. don't represent America. But all that we are reading about demographic trends in the UK, coupled with the pro-diversity, pro-immigration fanaticism of the elites spells a mostly nonwhite future for the UK. Now, I've been reading that and contemplating it for some time now, but somehow seeing it in this TV show in the form of the absence of rosy-cheeked British children in that classroom sort of brought it home visually for me.
But here's the dilemma I began to ponder: my friend reacted somewhat to the facts as I pointed them out to her, but it's obvious that although she may find it unfair or surprising, she clearly does not share my chagrin or my outrage about the loss of the UK and the marginalizing (or disappearance) of what was, historically, one of the great nations of people in the world.
To her, it's obviously not an emotional issue or even a visceral issue as it is for me. Maybe the fact that I have always been an Anglophile and the fact that the majority of my ancestors hailed from those isles makes it much more personal and hence more tragic to me.
But even when we talk about the homeland of my friend's ancestors, which is also being invaded and demographically swamped with third-worlders, she does not have any reaction other than one of detached annoyance. Her attitude seems to be, implicitly, ''that's too bad, but what can you do?" It's an attitude of resignation and acceptance.
And many people who may care somewhat about America are indifferent to what is happening in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Maybe we who have a larger sympathy with our brethren elsewhere in the West are a 'different', anomalous group of people. I am beginning to think so, and that is not a promising fact if it is true.
So here's the question I am mulling over. We often assume, those of us who are troubled by the demographic assault on our homeland, that what is needed is to 'wake people up' to the facts, and that, having awoken, they will rally to the cause. But will they?
It seems to me that for many people, knowledge alone will not arouse any impulse toward self-defense or defense of our people. Knowledge is not what's lacking, in most cases. Many people have heard the facts recited, but they simply refuse to process it, or they shrug and say 'what do we do?' and go on about their lives as if everything were fine.
We can impart knowledge to people, and that is something I try to do somewhat on this blog as well as in real life, but there has to be more. We need to cause people CARE about what is happening. If they don't intrinsically feel great love for this country or for their own people and heritage, they will not be roused to act in any way. What has happened to real love for people and country, or more immediately, home, hearth, and kin? It seems most people are content to hide their heads in the sand while our country is destroyed.
Can people who do not care be moved to care? Or is that feeling something that is either there, or it isn't?
I've been accused of being too subjective on this blog; I plead guilty. First, I'm a woman, and women are by nature prone to being more subjective and more emotional. We are the weaker sex in that sense. On the other hand, sometimes it is emotion and subjectivity that give us the motivation to stand up and to do what we can to stave off impending disaster. Those who are jaded and bereft of any deep attachment toward their people and their home will remain jaded and detached.
Can we succeed in stimulating any kind of positive emotional response in the uncaring and the indifferent? I don't know, but I certainly intend to keep on trying.

Labels: Britain, Demographics, Displacement, Diversity, Mass Immigration

This was posted over at Western Voices World News.
I agree with the WVWN folks that the man in the video is brave and that he conducts himself very well, considering. All the same, it is a vexing thing to watch and to listen to. I don't know what TV program this is, but it seems to be on a par with 'Jerry Springer' (same type of audience and atmosphere) and the female hosting it is obnoxious and flagrantly biased -- which is usual for TV here and in the UK. The fact, though, that this one lone Englishman is having to stand his ground against an audience stacked with hooting and jeering ''Britons'' from various corners of the Third World hardly constitutes any kind of fair discussion. The few Whites in the audience (if indeed they were White) were acting as outraged by what the man said as the minorities were, with all their gesticulating, pointing (bad manners; hasn't anyone told them that?) and eye-rolling.
In fact, they actually made some of his points for him, but the brainwashed ex-Whites in the audience and their ''new Briton'' companions won't be able to see that.
However, I give the English guy enormous credit for speaking his mind amongst a hostile mob, and seeming to do so very calmly.
For the rest, shame on them. They don't know, or probably care, how badly they came off in that clip.

Labels: Death Of The West, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Renegades, Racial Division, United Kingdom

This response from Dr. Frank Ellis, answering David Cameron's speech at the Munich Security Conference, has been making the rounds, and has provoked a lot of discussion and much approbation.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnonationalism, Mass Immigration, Multicult, United Kingdom

There is an interesting and informative exchange here on Daniel Hannan's blog on the Telegraph UK website.
I've posted a video or two of Hannan, or linked to articles of his. And readers have warned me that he is not on our side, a fact of which I am aware. But even knowing that I was appalled at his responses on the thread to commenter 'cotewood.'
From one of cotewood's comments:
''Yesterday, Daniel Hannan made a remarkable and fundamentally Marxist response to a question I asked him, and I want that comment front-of-house for a while, at least, so those many DT readers who admire him may understand what is really inside his head.
It is cowardice and careerism.
This was my question:
Do the English have the same right to life and land as every other people everywhere, or is there some strange thing about us which demands that we be race-replaced in England by Africans and Asians?
To this Daniel said:
I've already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?
Now, "the cut-off point" for being one with the English nation is clear to me. With intent or by stupidity, our political class launched a war of word and deed against the English on 22nd June 1948 - the day the Windrush docked. In this war our natural rights and interests, our voice, the very fact of our nature and our existence have been denied.
For me, then, the English remain the true and only people of this land, and can be discovered today only in the descendants of those who were the English before this criminal enterprise began.
Notice that Daniel is saying the same as any Socialist Workers Party member. He says that the English, as they exist in kinship today, are no different to Somalis, Afghans, Albanians, Poles, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Zimbabweans, Libyans ... You name it, that's what the English are. A capacious bag into which anything can be stuffed. Essentially meaningless.
Would he say that to a Jew? No. You can't tell a Jew he has no ethnicity, no collective being of his own that didn't belong to any African or any Arab. So why does he think the English are of so little account?
Why, because he is afraid of the party apparatus. He is afraid that he will be asked by some Pakistani constituent whose grandfather came here in 1954 "Why aren't I English?" He is afraid to tell him, "Because you're Pakistani. You can't be both"
Then we come to the second half of my question: why we English apparently have no right to a place of our own on this earth. With typical libertarian fatuity Daniel replies:
Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.
But territory is not debated at the level of house deeds and patio areas. This is a pathetic and unworthy evasion. Territory is the guarantor of a people's existence. The land of England is our guarantor. It is what our forefathers laboured to make and to pass down to their posterity - not to Africans and Asians. It is what they fought and died to defend.
The little Tory hides behind a piece of title paper while his people are dispossessed. Where is the true stature of the Englishman in that? I do not see it. And yet Daniel is not ashamed. He is proud to wag a finger at the hated BNP!
Really, this is where England ends, in the evasion and shamelessness of its politicians. God help us.''
Cotewood says it all very eloquently, and Hannan's responses seem irritable and shallow -- typical of the politician. I had the vague notion that Hannan might have some greater feeling for his country but it appears he is not much different than the rest. His point about regarding Britishness as a civic identity (which it is, actually, as contrasted to Englishness) tells it all. He is one of those proposition nation people, one of the melting pot advocates.
Here is a kind of encapsulation of the exchange between Hannan and 'cotewood', who is the person some of us know as Guessedworker at Majority Rights, apparently.
What he says about the predicament of his kinsmen and his country applies to our situation, too.
And it seems that the politicians are the same all over the Western world; they owe their allegiances to someone other than their own people, their ethnic brethren.

Labels: England, Mass Immigration, Political Classes, Race Replacement, Uk

Recently, this article from The Guardian appeared, announcing that the non-White populatioln of Britain had reached 9.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, says starkly that
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.

Labels: Anti-White, Ethnic Cleansing, Globalism, Leftism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Treason

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.

Labels: Elites, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Replacement

Arizona Senate panel passes birthright citizen law
Here is the Arizona Star's report on the bill.
AZ bill would ban illegal immigrants from driving, college
SB 1611, set for hearing this afternoon, also would put companies that do not use a federal database to check the status of new workers out of business. And it would require cities to evict anyone in public housing who cannot prove legal presence in this country.
Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, described the legislation as not doing much at all.
"This is cleanup," he said. "All it does is do what the voters have passed in terms of no taxpayer dollars for illegals."[Emphasis mine]
Contrast the situation in Arizona with that of, oh, let's say Wisconsin, at least as of a few years ago.
Wisconsin's efforts to give sanctuary to illegal immigrants by granting them official state documents have evidently been successful. According to the DMV personnel we interviewed, there has been a veritable flood of illegal immigrants besieging DMV offices to get IDs and licenses over the past four years. Illegal immigrants arrive at DMV stations almost daily. On some days they represent the bulk of a service center's customers, especially in the southeastern and mid-eastern parts of the state. Because of the extra time that DMV officials must spend aiding foreign license applicants, costs rise.
Estimates of the number of illegals who have Wisconsin IDs and driver's licenses are somewhere in the area of 350,000 to 400,000. According to one DMV source, the number cannot be affirmed with specificity because for years there "was an 'informal' agreement between the Madison DMV and the local Social Security office. If the DMV found someone there illegally, the person would be referred to the local Social Security office, which would somehow issue the person a number.... Thus many illegals appear to have valid Social Security numbers in our system and cannot be distinguished from genuine citizens." Apparently, the informal agreement was dropped sometime after 9/11.
The increased costs at the DMV centers are undoubtedly a drop in the bucket compared to the costs that the illegals impose on the state and county welfare systems. All of the DMV agents whom we interviewed affirmed that it is a common occurrence for illegal immigrants to use Wisconsin QUEST cards (which are used to get foodshare benefits) and Wisconsin Forward cards (which are used to access Medicaid and Badgercare healthcare programs) as proof of their identity when applying for licenses and IDs, indicating that the first priority for many illegals upon entering the state is to obtain welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.''
However, since then,
The Wisconsin legislature approved a new budget and it forbids illegal aliens from obtaining driver's licenses. The budget does, however, allow children of illegal aliens who attend Wisconsin high schools to qualify for in-state tuition.''
And here:
Some illegal immigrant high school graduates will be able to attend Wisconsin state universities by paying in-state tuition, under a provision in the two-year budget Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Monday.
Wisconsin now becomes the 11th state to enact such a law.
To qualify, students would have to reside in the state for three years, graduate from a Wisconsin high school or earn an equivalency degree here.
The students would have to apply through the normal channels.
It's estimated from 400 to 650 illegal immigrants annually graduate from state high schools, but they must pay out-of-state tuition if they enroll in the state university system or technical colleges.
[...]
State Rep. Pedro Colón (D-Milwaukee) first introduced the in-state college tuition measure in 1999, when he was new to the Assembly.''
According to this site Wisconsin has an estimated 41,000 illegal immigrants, a figure which sounds ridiculously low to me.
Apparently Wisconsin still offers medical care to pregnant women regardless of their illegal status.And it also provides medical care for 'anchor babies' or citizen children of illegals, according to the info in that pdf file at the link.
If we look at the states in the most financial trouble, it is evident that the states with the largest numbers of immigrants are the ones in dire straits, for the most part.
"The recession is causing state and local tax revenues to fall steeply at the same time that high unemployment and rising poverty are increasing the need for state services such as Medicaid and other programs that serve the poor and near-poor," McNichol said. "The change in the number of food stamp recipients is the single best early warning measure of what is happening to poverty in a state."
And the need for 'state services such as Medicaid' which 'serve the poor and near-poor' is directly tied to the number of immigrants and refugees, I would say. Some would insist that the poor economy is the only factor, but how does it make sense to add millions more immigrants and 'refugees' each year to an economy which already has such a high unemployment rate? And the numbers keep on mounting, with illegals entering this country every hour of every day. And that's not counting the millions of legal immigrants.
Even the immigrants who work usually draw some sort of state or federal benefits, such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, school lunches, WIC, and subsidized housing, as well as SSI, which is very much used by older immigrants (legal in most cases) who are brought here by their children or grandchildren.
There is just no honest way to disconnect the immigration issue from the economic crisis all across this country.
Meanwhile, people look for scapegoats among their own people, while passing over the immigration aspect of the story. Americans these days, especially White Americans, are too quick to condemn their own fellow Whites who are on unemployment, or older people who are on Social Security, while scarcely mentioning the role played by immigrants in this disaster. After all, one's own folk are safe targets for condemnation, as always, while the immigrants, though a source of some grumbling are usually excused and their role ignored, especially by the 'respectable Republicans' whose main concern is not to be called a name.
Kudos to Arizona for their efforts to do something to staunch the flow of 'taxpayer dollars to illegals.' And Wisconsin will have to recant its political correctness, or else the majority population will again have to foot the bill for the powers-that-be and their generosity to the replacement populations.

Labels: Illegal Immigration, Legislation, Mass Immigration, State Financial Crises

I've always maintained that the Ellis Island wave of immigration led to our current immigration tsunami, as the descendants of the original Ellis Island immigrants, who were essentially the vanguard of ''diversity'', tend to side with immigrants and against the core population of America, the old-stock colonist descendants.
We know the story; those Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who were bigots, were naughty and mean to the Ellis Island immigrants, writing harsh editorials about them and generally being snobbish and elitist.
Memories are long, and grudges persist for generations it seems, and so to compensate for having been so mean to the ethnic immigrants, we must now make amends in perpetuity by allowing Moslems to immigrate here. It's only fair, isn't it?
And isn't America a nation of immigrants, whose sacred duty is to provide a home for anybody who is dissatisfied or just plain restless? Don't they have a God-given right to immigrate here? Apparently so.
What, I wonder, would have happened if those old-stock WASPs who ran America then had simply said 'no, thanks' when the immigrant ships began arriving in great numbers? What if they had closed the 'Golden Door' as Emma Lazarus called it and said 'we're full up; we can manage just fine by ourselves.' Which we could, because we did, for 200 years or so.
Was it better for us to have opened those ''Golden Doors'' that have been just about torn off their hinges in recent years by the stampede of would-be immigrants, or would we have been better off without having put out the welcome mat?
The one factor that is almost never taken into account in discussing immigration is the interests of the native-born citizenry. Our interests and wishes should have been paramount; instead, the emphasis shifted to sympathy for the poor downtrodden, the 'huddled masses', and away from native-born Americans, and there it has stayed until this day.
In one immigration sob story of a year or so ago, I remember some Pakistani immigrant being quoted as saying that ''this country is for everybody; it doesn't belong to Americans only.'' And that's the party line that the media and our political classes hew to, to our great detriment.
We often say that the guilt trip began in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Revolution, but it began during the Ellis Island wave of immigration, and it's still going strong.
Blacks want reparations for the injustices they feel were done to them by our ancestors, but Ellis Islanders require penance of us, which involves opening our doors to all and sundry, without discriminating (that is, picking and choosing). The loss of our country and our majority status, along with our children's future, is the price being demanded ultimately in payment for our 'sins' against their ancestors.
However, I refuse to feel guilt on this score; there were legitimate reasons why the bad old WASPs wanted to choose carefully who came here to live among us; they wanted to preserve their existing order of things, which had been bought at a considerable price by their fathers. I suspect many of the Ellis Islanders don't appreciate that; their ancestors came to a country that had been carved out of the wilderness by others, and they did not even have to do the hard work of winning the country from nature and from the Indians. It's often said that what you yourself don't work for, tends to be valued lightly. That appears to be so, as many of the descendants of later immigrants seem not to care that this country might no longer be ours very soon. It seems they would prefer to give it away to strangers rather than let the resented WASP descendants enjoy it.
I think our present diversity debacle illustrates perfectly how diversity, far from being a strength, undermines and weakens and ultimately destroys the foundations of a nation.
And that diversity debacle was begun by allowing ever more disparate groups of people free entry into our country. Now that we can see the pattern, it may be too late to reverse it -- and it will be, if the EI descendants continue to try to extract their revenge on WASP America, or its tattered remnants.

Labels: American History, Diversity, Ellis Island Syndrome, Mass Immigration, Melting Pot, Multiculturalism, Nativism, Proposition Nation

Lately I've been paying less attention to what is going on in Europe, preoccupied as I am with the prospects of our own country. At Flanders Fields, Flanders has posted this video called E.U.: Multiculti empire.
It's 7 minutes plus in length, but it is worth viewing. It's one thing to read about what is going on there, but seeing it on these video clips really makes it much more immediate. At about 4:30 in the video, you will hear the Moslem call to prayer -- which Obama describes as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset." You be the judge.
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it�ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
And on the topic of Eurabia, over at Brussels Journal there is a piece called 'Reverse Colonization', regarding Diana West's observations of Moslems in Belgium.
What is different here, of course [�] is that what is going here is not a traditional process of assimilation to the host (European) culture, but a quietly revolutionary procedure best described as reverse colonization: Europe is being colonized by Islam.''
The discussion thread heats up somewhat as some stubborn commenters, apparently our fellow Americans, think the Hispanic invasion is no problem; after all, Latinos are Christian and they are really nice people (with the usual anecdotes to back this assertion up.)
Mexicans, if we can't get a handle on this, trust me, aren't going to be the detriment to our culture that the ever growing Muslim masses are to Europe. Wait until Europe stares down the barrel of Iran's "Muslim" nuclear bomb.''
Stubborn. Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn. How do we get past this? I encounter it so often. Why should we 'trust' this commenter and all those who think like him, who assure us that turning America into Mexico will be just fine, if we relax and enjoy it?
Commenter 'Ernest' on the thread (maybe 'our' Ernest, who comments here sometimes) makes a valiant old school effort at talking some sense into the Hispanophiles on the thread, but apparently to little avail as they just repeat their nonsense verbatim, like a broken record.
Sometimes I wonder whether our 'invisible elites' whom we cuss and discuss here so often did not purposely unleash Islam on us so as to make the Latino invasion seem less objectionable to a lot of people. It seems to have worked that way. 'At least the Mexicans aren't trying to blow us up, at least they are Christian, at least we can intermarry with those nice people, at least they work hard....'' and so on, ad nauseam.
It's unfortunate that the Mexican version of the jihad against us takes the form mostly of common-or-garden crime: drunk driving, random violence of various kinds, drug-dealing, sex crimes. Yes, I know the Islamic invaders in Europe do similar things to the European people, but their aggression is more overt -- which stands a greater chance of arousing some kind of response from the slow-to-anger Europeans.
The Brussels Journals commenters seem to think that we in America are in better shape. I wish I could believe that.

Labels: Borders, Colonization, Eu, Eurabia, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness

Will wonders never cease? The New York Times, inexplicably, tells some truths on immigration. Whatever brought this about, I wonder?
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people � the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey�s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota�s methods of data analysis.
A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.
The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs � an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''
Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.
But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Among the report�s findings:
*
The nation�s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.
*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived � the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship � 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation�s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation�s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation�s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''
[all emphases mine]
Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.
The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.
One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?
And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.
I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'
Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.

Labels: Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders

Pat Buchanan has a new book coming out, as reported by Drudge:
NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES 'END OF AMERICA'
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET
**Exclusive**
"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."
The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.
This time, Buchanan goes all the way:
"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."
The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America�s global commitments.
The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.
U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.
The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.
The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.
A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.
All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.''
Read the rest at Drudge Report, as linked above.
I don't see how any sentient person can fail to realize that we are in an unprecedented situation here in America, the like of which we have never experienced. However, the human tendency is to try to deny troubling realities and to pretend that all is well.
In some situations, that is a laudable tendency, to try to maintain a positive outlook, but in many situations it does not serve us well at all. In order to take appropriate action, we have to first acknowledge that the situation demands a response. The longer we delay responding, assuring ourselves and others that things are just fine, the more difficult it will be to rectify the situation, and usually the more costly.
The first reaction I had when I read the synopsis is: what, then, does Pat propose can be done? Apparently he does offer recommendations, such as:
� A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops
� A purge of neoconservative ideology and the "Cakewalk" crowd" from national power.
� To avert a second Cold War, the United States should "get out of Russia�s space and get out of Russia�s face," and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union
� To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
� To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers
� To prevent America becoming "a tangle of squabbling nationalities" Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a "timeout" on all immigration.''
I can't disagree on most of those points, especially the last part about a timeout on immigration.
But is it possible that Pat is sensationaliizing the situation in an effort to sell books? I ask this only because I know people will make that accusation, and the fact is, Buchanan has been predicting doom and gloom for a while now, and people will say, 'well, the sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?'
The fact is, I see him on MSNBC as a regular commentator on Tucker Carlson's show. And Buchanan seems to see the Republican party as the preferred vehicle for conservatives to take part in our system. Sometimes I wonder what his actual political position is now vis-a-vis the GOP? To my mind, the crisis we are in will require, to use the cliche, thinking outside the box, recognizing that our two existing political parties are a huge part of the problem, and as such cannot be expected to provide a solution.
What say all of you to Buchanan's diagnosis and prescriptions? Any thoughts?

Labels: American Society, American Sovereignty, Demographics, Mass Immigration, Societal Decay