0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
From the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog:
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Multiculturalism, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, Refugees, United Nations, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, September 7, 2014 | admin
For once, an encouraging story out of the UK. The people of one town are defending their own community as their leftist, PC authorities fail to do so.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
Labels: Death Of The West, Globalism, Leftism, Localism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, United Kingdom, United Nations
0 comment Saturday, August 30, 2014 | admin
From an article called Not So Huddled Masses: Multiculturalism and Foreign Policy
by Scott McConnell
The modest contemporary literature on the connection between America�s immigration and foreign policies contains this assertion by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, from the introduction to their 1974 volume Ethnicity: Theory and Experience: "The immigration process is the single most important determinant of American foreign policy . . . This process regulates the ethnic composition of the American electorate. Foreign policy responds to that ethnic composition. It responds to other things as well, but probably first of all to the primary fact of ethnicity."
Yet, the authors noted a nearly complete absence of discussion of the issue, and they pursued it little themselves. Rather, they tossed it in as a supplement to their general argument: ethnicity was not going to wither away, leaving only colorful residues for annoyance or celebration. It would remain a primary form of social life in the United States.
Nonetheless, ethnicity played little role in the foreign policy battles of the 1960s and 1970s.''
This is an interesting piece, though I take issue with certain of his presuppositions.
He does correctly note that the 1965 Immigration Act was a turning point, and he makes the connection between the passage of that Act and the Civil Rights Revolution of the years preceding. On this blog I've mentioned that Ted Kennedy himself said that the Immigration Act was a natural extension of the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that 'civil rights' for American-born blacks also extended to the 'civil right' to immigrate here for all nonwhite peoples. To continue immigration restriction, especially when the restrictions favored European immigrants, would be seen in the light of our newfound ideology as 'discrimination', and that, above all, was not to be allowed.
In any case, the backers of the 1965 act did not imagine huge demographic changes: there would be, they claimed, some modest increase in the number of Greek and Italian immigrants but not much else. The sheer inaccuracy of this prediction was already apparent by the early 1970s. The 1965 Act allowed entry of immigrants from any country, so long as they possessed certain job skills or family members living here or had been granted refugee status themselves.
The family reunification provision soon became the vital engine of immigrant selection. By the 1980s, it had greatly increased numbers of Asians and of Hispanics�the latter mostly from Mexico. The European population of the country was now in relative decline�from 87 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 2008. If immigration continues at present rates (and barring a long-term economic collapse, it is likely to), by 2040, Hispanics will make up a quarter of the American population.''
I think he, (along with most who discuss this subject of demographics) greatly underestimates the numbers of Mexicans and other Hispanics who are here now (who knows how many?) and the number who are still coming. The government has consistently, and I think deliberately, lowballed their figures so as to allay the concerns of many people. And obviously, the low estimates produce an inaccurate prediction of how many will be here by 2040. I am convinced that White Americans will be a minority before that date. All the signs are there.
McConnell discusses the role played by ethnicity in our past foreign policy. He describes how the various ethnic groups in America influenced our country towards neutrality in both world wars, as conflicting ethnic interests caused heated disagreements about the right course of action.
In any event, America�s intra-European divisions began to melt away quickly after Pearl Harbor, as military service became the defining generational event for American men born between 1914 and 1924. The mixed army squad of WASP, Italian, German, Jew, and Irish became a standard plot device for the popular World War II novel and film.''
But did those wartime movies simply reflect the reality of the 'melting pot' America which had unified around the patriotic cause? Or were the movies meant to try to create such a reality and influence the real world? There was probably some of the latter involved. I've noticed how many World War II era movies were heavy on the 'one big American family' storyline, with each European ethnicity being celebrated and given positive treatment. Did the old distrusts and animosities evaporate during the War, or did they just get swept under the carpet for the duration?
McConnell connects the new post-war ethnic activism to the Cold War, with many Eastern Europeans being very anti-Communist.
Eastern Europeans lobbied for the rollback of Soviet rule, enshrining it as a GOP platform plank if not a practical commitment. Americans of East European background remained staunchly anti-Communist long after anti-Communism surrendered its luster in the aftermath of Vietnam, allying with neoconservative Jews and hamstringing Nixon and Kissinger�s détente policy. As anti-Communism became an engine of Americanization, the Cold War showcased the hyphenated American.''
I've noted too that the Cold War also became further incentive for America to embrace egalitarianism and to aggressively push 'civil rights', as a response to Communist propaganda. The old Soviet Union found that for many Americans, our Achilles' heel was the racial inequality that they saw in America. And the Soviets, being fully committed to egalitarian ideology, believed that any inequalities were the result of oppression and discrimination, not of any innate differences among the races. So they focused on the racial divisions in our country, seeing this as a way of discrediting our claims of being a free country with 'liberty and justice for all.' The Soviets, in addition to emphasizing in their propaganda how we were a country of haves and have-nots, a country with extremes of wealth and poverty, liked to accuse us of being racially backward. And our elected officials seemed especially stung by these allegations from the Soviets. They felt that we had to show the world we were making progress on 'racial unity' and thus win the propaganda war, the public relations war.
Now, we seem committed to continuing this 'multicultural', proposition nation image that was so deliberately crafted in the 60s and onward.
McConnell downplays the potential foreign policy influence of Hispanics, seeing them as not particularly loyal to the Mexican state, which they see as corrupt. I wonder if he noticed all those demonstrations a few years ago, in which Mexicans (and other Latinos) aggressively carried their national flags? Has he ever been through a Mexican neighborhood and seen how many Mexican flags fly? Granted these are anecdotes, not hard evidence, but I would say the Latinos, whether Mexican or other Latin Americans, are highly ethnocentric, aggressively so, as they have always been. He confuses loyalty to a state or regime with loyalty to their ethnic nation and their culture.
How can it be that we have always been a neighbor to Mexico, yet few Americans seem to know much about Mexicans, other than the stereotypes and the pro-Hispanic propaganda put out by the RNC et al?
McConnell, like most conservatives, seems almost exclusively concerned with the fortunes of political parties rather than the well-being and the future of the American people, the core, American population. I get the sense that he thinks we are already history, or soon will be, and this does not bother him.
He cavalierly describes the end of 'Anglo-Protestantism':
For if solidifying the American nation required a re-invigorated Anglo-Protestant culture, the initiative would have to come to a considerable degree from Anglo-Protestants themselves. Reading Huntington (and Kennan as well), one cannot but sense that what they really seek is a revival of something resembling the American national elite of the 1940s and 1950s, exemplified by the foreign policy "wise men" of the Truman era (of whom Kennan was one). But that particular Protestant elite, whose cousins held the commanding positions of America�s industries and universities, was more or less banished from the national stage in the 1960s. Not only is its return impossible; it barely exists. What has replaced it as the dynamic core of American Protestantism is the evangelical culture Bacevich describes, rooted in the South and West, whose attitudes were epitomized by the Bush-Cheney administration.
If the emergence of an American elite able to cement a strong national identity and coherent national interest is unlikely, what options remain for a country now irreversibly multicultural? Huntington saw the choice as either imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism, both of which would erode what is unique about America.''
He describes paleoconservatives (among which he includes immigration restrictionists and 'America Firsters') as being future losers in the 'immigration wars.'
And yet he does not seem to see that it is America as we have known it which is being lost.
I suppose this is the fruit of seeing America as a political entity or an ongoing 'proposition' rather than a nation made up of a specific core group of people and a continuous tradition.
by Scott McConnell
The modest contemporary literature on the connection between America�s immigration and foreign policies contains this assertion by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, from the introduction to their 1974 volume Ethnicity: Theory and Experience: "The immigration process is the single most important determinant of American foreign policy . . . This process regulates the ethnic composition of the American electorate. Foreign policy responds to that ethnic composition. It responds to other things as well, but probably first of all to the primary fact of ethnicity."
Yet, the authors noted a nearly complete absence of discussion of the issue, and they pursued it little themselves. Rather, they tossed it in as a supplement to their general argument: ethnicity was not going to wither away, leaving only colorful residues for annoyance or celebration. It would remain a primary form of social life in the United States.
Nonetheless, ethnicity played little role in the foreign policy battles of the 1960s and 1970s.''
This is an interesting piece, though I take issue with certain of his presuppositions.
He does correctly note that the 1965 Immigration Act was a turning point, and he makes the connection between the passage of that Act and the Civil Rights Revolution of the years preceding. On this blog I've mentioned that Ted Kennedy himself said that the Immigration Act was a natural extension of the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that 'civil rights' for American-born blacks also extended to the 'civil right' to immigrate here for all nonwhite peoples. To continue immigration restriction, especially when the restrictions favored European immigrants, would be seen in the light of our newfound ideology as 'discrimination', and that, above all, was not to be allowed.
In any case, the backers of the 1965 act did not imagine huge demographic changes: there would be, they claimed, some modest increase in the number of Greek and Italian immigrants but not much else. The sheer inaccuracy of this prediction was already apparent by the early 1970s. The 1965 Act allowed entry of immigrants from any country, so long as they possessed certain job skills or family members living here or had been granted refugee status themselves.
The family reunification provision soon became the vital engine of immigrant selection. By the 1980s, it had greatly increased numbers of Asians and of Hispanics�the latter mostly from Mexico. The European population of the country was now in relative decline�from 87 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 2008. If immigration continues at present rates (and barring a long-term economic collapse, it is likely to), by 2040, Hispanics will make up a quarter of the American population.''
I think he, (along with most who discuss this subject of demographics) greatly underestimates the numbers of Mexicans and other Hispanics who are here now (who knows how many?) and the number who are still coming. The government has consistently, and I think deliberately, lowballed their figures so as to allay the concerns of many people. And obviously, the low estimates produce an inaccurate prediction of how many will be here by 2040. I am convinced that White Americans will be a minority before that date. All the signs are there.
McConnell discusses the role played by ethnicity in our past foreign policy. He describes how the various ethnic groups in America influenced our country towards neutrality in both world wars, as conflicting ethnic interests caused heated disagreements about the right course of action.
In any event, America�s intra-European divisions began to melt away quickly after Pearl Harbor, as military service became the defining generational event for American men born between 1914 and 1924. The mixed army squad of WASP, Italian, German, Jew, and Irish became a standard plot device for the popular World War II novel and film.''
But did those wartime movies simply reflect the reality of the 'melting pot' America which had unified around the patriotic cause? Or were the movies meant to try to create such a reality and influence the real world? There was probably some of the latter involved. I've noticed how many World War II era movies were heavy on the 'one big American family' storyline, with each European ethnicity being celebrated and given positive treatment. Did the old distrusts and animosities evaporate during the War, or did they just get swept under the carpet for the duration?
McConnell connects the new post-war ethnic activism to the Cold War, with many Eastern Europeans being very anti-Communist.
Eastern Europeans lobbied for the rollback of Soviet rule, enshrining it as a GOP platform plank if not a practical commitment. Americans of East European background remained staunchly anti-Communist long after anti-Communism surrendered its luster in the aftermath of Vietnam, allying with neoconservative Jews and hamstringing Nixon and Kissinger�s détente policy. As anti-Communism became an engine of Americanization, the Cold War showcased the hyphenated American.''
I've noted too that the Cold War also became further incentive for America to embrace egalitarianism and to aggressively push 'civil rights', as a response to Communist propaganda. The old Soviet Union found that for many Americans, our Achilles' heel was the racial inequality that they saw in America. And the Soviets, being fully committed to egalitarian ideology, believed that any inequalities were the result of oppression and discrimination, not of any innate differences among the races. So they focused on the racial divisions in our country, seeing this as a way of discrediting our claims of being a free country with 'liberty and justice for all.' The Soviets, in addition to emphasizing in their propaganda how we were a country of haves and have-nots, a country with extremes of wealth and poverty, liked to accuse us of being racially backward. And our elected officials seemed especially stung by these allegations from the Soviets. They felt that we had to show the world we were making progress on 'racial unity' and thus win the propaganda war, the public relations war.
Now, we seem committed to continuing this 'multicultural', proposition nation image that was so deliberately crafted in the 60s and onward.
McConnell downplays the potential foreign policy influence of Hispanics, seeing them as not particularly loyal to the Mexican state, which they see as corrupt. I wonder if he noticed all those demonstrations a few years ago, in which Mexicans (and other Latinos) aggressively carried their national flags? Has he ever been through a Mexican neighborhood and seen how many Mexican flags fly? Granted these are anecdotes, not hard evidence, but I would say the Latinos, whether Mexican or other Latin Americans, are highly ethnocentric, aggressively so, as they have always been. He confuses loyalty to a state or regime with loyalty to their ethnic nation and their culture.
How can it be that we have always been a neighbor to Mexico, yet few Americans seem to know much about Mexicans, other than the stereotypes and the pro-Hispanic propaganda put out by the RNC et al?
McConnell, like most conservatives, seems almost exclusively concerned with the fortunes of political parties rather than the well-being and the future of the American people, the core, American population. I get the sense that he thinks we are already history, or soon will be, and this does not bother him.
He cavalierly describes the end of 'Anglo-Protestantism':
For if solidifying the American nation required a re-invigorated Anglo-Protestant culture, the initiative would have to come to a considerable degree from Anglo-Protestants themselves. Reading Huntington (and Kennan as well), one cannot but sense that what they really seek is a revival of something resembling the American national elite of the 1940s and 1950s, exemplified by the foreign policy "wise men" of the Truman era (of whom Kennan was one). But that particular Protestant elite, whose cousins held the commanding positions of America�s industries and universities, was more or less banished from the national stage in the 1960s. Not only is its return impossible; it barely exists. What has replaced it as the dynamic core of American Protestantism is the evangelical culture Bacevich describes, rooted in the South and West, whose attitudes were epitomized by the Bush-Cheney administration.
If the emergence of an American elite able to cement a strong national identity and coherent national interest is unlikely, what options remain for a country now irreversibly multicultural? Huntington saw the choice as either imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism, both of which would erode what is unique about America.''
He describes paleoconservatives (among which he includes immigration restrictionists and 'America Firsters') as being future losers in the 'immigration wars.'
And yet he does not seem to see that it is America as we have known it which is being lost.
I suppose this is the fruit of seeing America as a political entity or an ongoing 'proposition' rather than a nation made up of a specific core group of people and a continuous tradition.
Labels: American Identity, Demographics, Hart-Celler Act, Immigration Restrictionists, Mass Immigration, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession
0 comment Tuesday, August 5, 2014 | admin
I had intended to write a piece commenting on Takuan Seiyo's latest installment of his Meccania to Atlantis series, but after having re-read his essay, I find myself unable to offer a detailed response; it's rather overwhelming.
The comment thread is not much help, either, as it is sidetracked at one point into a discussion of Bob Dylan's politics and philosophy.
(What is it, by the way, with Dylan and conservatives? I notice that What's Wrong With the World also had a thread about Dylan recently.
Like most people of my age, I used to like Dylan and I once thought he was quite profound -- at least when I didn't think he was being cryptic merely for the sake of it. But I was still quite young and quite naively liberal then. Nowadays I don't see him as any kind of conservative prophet as some seem to do.)
As to Seiyo's piece, I have to take issue with one thing, specifically, that he says
The West�s� original population � what we call for brevity�s sake "Whites" -- has given away the keys to its own home, and delights in being plundered. The ruling Body Snatchers have initiated and executed the plunder, but it�s the demos of democracy that has chosen those Body Snatchers and keeps them at the trough.''
I hear this and read this a lot, in one form or another. Have Whites really given away the keys to our own home knowingly, willingly, and do most of us 'delight in being plundered'? If this is so, or if Seiyo believes this (and others), then maybe it's pointless to even lament the fate of the West and of Whites. If our current fate is truly what 'we' want, and what we 'delight in', as he says, then let's just all stop talking about it and fretting over it and have an end-of-the-world party while we wait for the lights to go out.
I don't think it's as simple as that: that we've chosen it, with open eyes, and that we 'delight' in it. Do we?
How do we counter this idea, which is often expressed?
I also object, as I've said on comment threads before, to the often-stated claim that 'they [the Others of whatever kind] are not the problem; it's Whites who are the problem. We can't blame Them [the Others] for doing what they do; we have to blame our own.''
No, I don't agree. If my local law enforcement officers are lax in policing neighborhoods and turn a blind eye to crime under their noses, do I say that the burglars or home invaders or muggers in my neighborhood are 'not to blame' or 'not the problem'? Of course they are to blame, and of course they are the problem -- or part of it. But I can't go so far as to absolve the opportunists of their crimes just because law enforcement is lax and derelict in their duty. Granted, they are to blame in part, and should be called to account, but let's not let the criminals off the hook. Let's not excuse illegals, or minorities who work the system to shake the rest of us down. They are to blame, too. This cry of 'they aren't the problem' seems just like one more example of political correctness, of trying to shield the 'downtrodden' from any blame or culpability, and it is not right.
And as I've said before, if we can't even muster any sense of righteous indignation about what is being done to us, especially towards the people who are directly doing harm to us, then we may as well throw in the towel.
Any thoughts on Seiyo's piece? Or the questions I posed a couple of paragraphs ago?
The comment thread is not much help, either, as it is sidetracked at one point into a discussion of Bob Dylan's politics and philosophy.
(What is it, by the way, with Dylan and conservatives? I notice that What's Wrong With the World also had a thread about Dylan recently.
Like most people of my age, I used to like Dylan and I once thought he was quite profound -- at least when I didn't think he was being cryptic merely for the sake of it. But I was still quite young and quite naively liberal then. Nowadays I don't see him as any kind of conservative prophet as some seem to do.)
As to Seiyo's piece, I have to take issue with one thing, specifically, that he says
The West�s� original population � what we call for brevity�s sake "Whites" -- has given away the keys to its own home, and delights in being plundered. The ruling Body Snatchers have initiated and executed the plunder, but it�s the demos of democracy that has chosen those Body Snatchers and keeps them at the trough.''
I hear this and read this a lot, in one form or another. Have Whites really given away the keys to our own home knowingly, willingly, and do most of us 'delight in being plundered'? If this is so, or if Seiyo believes this (and others), then maybe it's pointless to even lament the fate of the West and of Whites. If our current fate is truly what 'we' want, and what we 'delight in', as he says, then let's just all stop talking about it and fretting over it and have an end-of-the-world party while we wait for the lights to go out.
I don't think it's as simple as that: that we've chosen it, with open eyes, and that we 'delight' in it. Do we?
How do we counter this idea, which is often expressed?
I also object, as I've said on comment threads before, to the often-stated claim that 'they [the Others of whatever kind] are not the problem; it's Whites who are the problem. We can't blame Them [the Others] for doing what they do; we have to blame our own.''
No, I don't agree. If my local law enforcement officers are lax in policing neighborhoods and turn a blind eye to crime under their noses, do I say that the burglars or home invaders or muggers in my neighborhood are 'not to blame' or 'not the problem'? Of course they are to blame, and of course they are the problem -- or part of it. But I can't go so far as to absolve the opportunists of their crimes just because law enforcement is lax and derelict in their duty. Granted, they are to blame in part, and should be called to account, but let's not let the criminals off the hook. Let's not excuse illegals, or minorities who work the system to shake the rest of us down. They are to blame, too. This cry of 'they aren't the problem' seems just like one more example of political correctness, of trying to shield the 'downtrodden' from any blame or culpability, and it is not right.
And as I've said before, if we can't even muster any sense of righteous indignation about what is being done to us, especially towards the people who are directly doing harm to us, then we may as well throw in the towel.
Any thoughts on Seiyo's piece? Or the questions I posed a couple of paragraphs ago?
Labels: Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Western Decline
0 comment Thursday, July 31, 2014 | admin
I find it interesting and encouraging that there has been recent attention paid to writers of the past, such as Lothrop Stoddard, about whom I blogged recently, and now Madison Grant, who is the subject of a piece at VDare.com:
Madison Grant: Preserving Buffaloes, Redwoods -- And Founding Stock Americans
by F. Roger Devlin
Madison Grant (1865-1937), conservationist and architect of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, is finally the subject of a biography: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant
The author, Prof. Jonathan Spiro, recounts that
During the course of my research, if I told people I was writing a biography of a leading conservationist, they would delightedly exclaim "how wonderful!" On the other hand, if I told people that my subject was a leading eugenicist, they would invariably respond: "How dreadful!"
Yet Madison Grant had similar motivations for both of these endeavors. Having worked to save buffaloes, antelopes, eagles and bears, it seemed only natural to him to turn to the preservation of his own kind, viz., Americans threatened by the flood of foreign immigration of the early twentieth century.
[...]
In 1908, Grant came under the influence of physical anthropologist William Z. Ripley, author of The Races of Europe. He learned that the rise of mass immigration correlated with a drastic decline in the fertility of the older American population. As a result, immigration amounted not to a re-enforcement of the American population but to a replacement of native by foreign stock.''
From a 1997 AmRen article:
Grant concluded that America should abandon a largely open-door immigration policy. He favored a eugenics program that would promote the Nordic race and discourage the expansion of the colored races in the white world. In particular, he condemned miscegenation.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons Grant and other racialists opposed the new immigration was that it brought alien ideologies. The First World War had seen the triumph of Bolshevism, and continuing immigration from Eastern Europe brought Marxists. Like most racialists, Grant saw socialism as unfit for Nordics. When he was helping found the Galton Society in 1918, he wrote to the other organizers: "My proposal is the organization of an anthropological society � confined to native Americans, who are anthropologically, socially, and politically sound, no Bolsheviki need apply."
Again, though Grant is now anathema to the usual suspects, being generally mentioned as having been an inspiration to (who else?) Hitler, we can see that he was held in much higher regard in his own time, when people did not cower in fear of something called 'political correctness':
The Passing of the Great Race became an immediate best-seller, with new editions in 1918, 1920, and 1921, multiple printings, and translations into German, French, and Norwegian.
It was reviewed favorably by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and by periodicals as diverse as the Journal of Heredity and The Saturday Evening Post. The editor of the Post commissioned a series of articles on immigration in a similar vein, and in an editorial in the May 7, 1921, issue wrote: "Two books in particular that every American should read if he wishes to understand the full gravity of our present immigration problem: Mr. Madison Grant�s The Passing of the Great Race and Dr. Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color� . These books should do a vast amount of good if they fall into the hands of readers who can face without wincing the impact of new and disturbing ideas."
You can find several of Grant's works online here, though they are not very readable due to many typos. Amazon.com also has several of his books available in addition to the new book by Jonathan Spiro.
From Henry Fairfield Osborn's preface to Grant's book The Passing of the Great Race:
Thus conservation of that race which has given us the true spirit of Americanism is not a matter either of racial pride or of racial prejudice; it is a matter of love of country, of a true sentiment which is based upon knowledge and the lessons of history rather than upon the sentimentalism which is fostered by ignorance. If I were asked: What is the greatest danger which threatens the American republic to-day ? I would certainly reply: The gradual dying out among our people of those hereditary traits through which the principles of our religious, political and social foundations were laid down and their insidious replacement by traits of less noble character.''
It seems to me that these words represent ideas whose time has truly come; in his day, they were important, but today, they are crucial ideas.
And here, an excerpt from an interesting review by R.E. Prindle of Grant's 'A Conquest of a Continent'
In the immediacy of the moment one frequently overlooks or forgets the history leading up to the moment. One might think for instance that the current flap over Diversity and Multi-Culturalism is a recent occurrence. While the two terms are of recent provenance the argument under different names goes back much farther while the protagonists are essentially the same.
The story of immigration into America is almost always told from the point of view of the immigrant. Few books tell the tale from the Nativist point of view and they are universally and viciously derided as a tale told by bigoted idiots. While charity is demanded from the Nativists none is to be expected from the immigrationists.
Thus we get volumes like Strangers In The Land by John Higham and Carl Wittke�s We Who Built America that distort the issue in favor of immigrants while deprecating the Natives.
Gustavus Myers� History Of Bigotry In The United States on the other hand appears to be a willful misunderstanding of the nature of the relative status between immigrant and native resulting in a slanderous approach like that of the contemporary Greil Marcus.
Conquest Of A Continent has been placed on the Jewish Index Of Anti-Semitic Books. Based on that I expected a detailed derogatory examination of the Jews from their entry into America perhaps being the conquerors referred to. The President of the American Jewish Committee sent a letter to every Jewish publisher in the United States demanding that they refrain from either reviewing the book or noticing it at all. Dynamic silence was to prevail.
[...]
Grant�s book should prove useful to any unbiased reader. If his attitude of Nordic superiority offends you, ignore it. His history as history is sound. For those of you reared on Myer�s History of Bigory attitude you will probably be surprised to find that there is another point of view. Bigotry is not a matter solely of American destestation of immigrants as the program of Diversity and Multi-Culturalism indicates, bigotry is a red herring and not the issue. The issue is who will be Top Race. The contestants for the Top Spot have turned out to be the Africans, Semites (both Jews and Arab Moslems) Hispanics, Chinese and Euro-Americans. (Grant�s Nordics) As you can see race has replaced nationalism.
The contest is real and ongoing. Peace is merely another form of war. The prize will go to who wants it the most. If you don�t see the contest in these terms I suggest you remove your rose colored glasses.''
Madison Grant: Preserving Buffaloes, Redwoods -- And Founding Stock Americans
by F. Roger Devlin
Madison Grant (1865-1937), conservationist and architect of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, is finally the subject of a biography: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant
The author, Prof. Jonathan Spiro, recounts that
During the course of my research, if I told people I was writing a biography of a leading conservationist, they would delightedly exclaim "how wonderful!" On the other hand, if I told people that my subject was a leading eugenicist, they would invariably respond: "How dreadful!"
Yet Madison Grant had similar motivations for both of these endeavors. Having worked to save buffaloes, antelopes, eagles and bears, it seemed only natural to him to turn to the preservation of his own kind, viz., Americans threatened by the flood of foreign immigration of the early twentieth century.
[...]
In 1908, Grant came under the influence of physical anthropologist William Z. Ripley, author of The Races of Europe. He learned that the rise of mass immigration correlated with a drastic decline in the fertility of the older American population. As a result, immigration amounted not to a re-enforcement of the American population but to a replacement of native by foreign stock.''
From a 1997 AmRen article:
Grant concluded that America should abandon a largely open-door immigration policy. He favored a eugenics program that would promote the Nordic race and discourage the expansion of the colored races in the white world. In particular, he condemned miscegenation.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons Grant and other racialists opposed the new immigration was that it brought alien ideologies. The First World War had seen the triumph of Bolshevism, and continuing immigration from Eastern Europe brought Marxists. Like most racialists, Grant saw socialism as unfit for Nordics. When he was helping found the Galton Society in 1918, he wrote to the other organizers: "My proposal is the organization of an anthropological society � confined to native Americans, who are anthropologically, socially, and politically sound, no Bolsheviki need apply."
Again, though Grant is now anathema to the usual suspects, being generally mentioned as having been an inspiration to (who else?) Hitler, we can see that he was held in much higher regard in his own time, when people did not cower in fear of something called 'political correctness':
The Passing of the Great Race became an immediate best-seller, with new editions in 1918, 1920, and 1921, multiple printings, and translations into German, French, and Norwegian.
It was reviewed favorably by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and by periodicals as diverse as the Journal of Heredity and The Saturday Evening Post. The editor of the Post commissioned a series of articles on immigration in a similar vein, and in an editorial in the May 7, 1921, issue wrote: "Two books in particular that every American should read if he wishes to understand the full gravity of our present immigration problem: Mr. Madison Grant�s The Passing of the Great Race and Dr. Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color� . These books should do a vast amount of good if they fall into the hands of readers who can face without wincing the impact of new and disturbing ideas."
You can find several of Grant's works online here, though they are not very readable due to many typos. Amazon.com also has several of his books available in addition to the new book by Jonathan Spiro.
From Henry Fairfield Osborn's preface to Grant's book The Passing of the Great Race:
Thus conservation of that race which has given us the true spirit of Americanism is not a matter either of racial pride or of racial prejudice; it is a matter of love of country, of a true sentiment which is based upon knowledge and the lessons of history rather than upon the sentimentalism which is fostered by ignorance. If I were asked: What is the greatest danger which threatens the American republic to-day ? I would certainly reply: The gradual dying out among our people of those hereditary traits through which the principles of our religious, political and social foundations were laid down and their insidious replacement by traits of less noble character.''
It seems to me that these words represent ideas whose time has truly come; in his day, they were important, but today, they are crucial ideas.
And here, an excerpt from an interesting review by R.E. Prindle of Grant's 'A Conquest of a Continent'
In the immediacy of the moment one frequently overlooks or forgets the history leading up to the moment. One might think for instance that the current flap over Diversity and Multi-Culturalism is a recent occurrence. While the two terms are of recent provenance the argument under different names goes back much farther while the protagonists are essentially the same.
The story of immigration into America is almost always told from the point of view of the immigrant. Few books tell the tale from the Nativist point of view and they are universally and viciously derided as a tale told by bigoted idiots. While charity is demanded from the Nativists none is to be expected from the immigrationists.
Thus we get volumes like Strangers In The Land by John Higham and Carl Wittke�s We Who Built America that distort the issue in favor of immigrants while deprecating the Natives.
Gustavus Myers� History Of Bigotry In The United States on the other hand appears to be a willful misunderstanding of the nature of the relative status between immigrant and native resulting in a slanderous approach like that of the contemporary Greil Marcus.
Conquest Of A Continent has been placed on the Jewish Index Of Anti-Semitic Books. Based on that I expected a detailed derogatory examination of the Jews from their entry into America perhaps being the conquerors referred to. The President of the American Jewish Committee sent a letter to every Jewish publisher in the United States demanding that they refrain from either reviewing the book or noticing it at all. Dynamic silence was to prevail.
[...]
Grant�s book should prove useful to any unbiased reader. If his attitude of Nordic superiority offends you, ignore it. His history as history is sound. For those of you reared on Myer�s History of Bigory attitude you will probably be surprised to find that there is another point of view. Bigotry is not a matter solely of American destestation of immigrants as the program of Diversity and Multi-Culturalism indicates, bigotry is a red herring and not the issue. The issue is who will be Top Race. The contestants for the Top Spot have turned out to be the Africans, Semites (both Jews and Arab Moslems) Hispanics, Chinese and Euro-Americans. (Grant�s Nordics) As you can see race has replaced nationalism.
The contest is real and ongoing. Peace is merely another form of war. The prize will go to who wants it the most. If you don�t see the contest in these terms I suggest you remove your rose colored glasses.''
Labels: American History, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Demographics, Ethnoconservatism, Mass Immigration, Nativism, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Racial Dispossession
0 comment Wednesday, May 28, 2014 | admin
At the Occidental Observer, there is a piece by Christopher Donovan which is about 'race-ending life paths of young Whites.' It's a discussion of several trends among young people which are an impediment to their following the traditional pattern of marrying young and having several children.
He notes that most White families show the same generational pattern, with the oldest generations having come from large families, and each generation having fewer and fewer children. I think this is true of most families now, at least most White families.
My father came from a very large family (12 children, or 13 if you count the relative who was brought up as one of the household.) All these siblings married and had children, with the exception of one. None of the brothers and sisters had more than 5 children, and though that sounds like a big family to most people today, it was not, in comparison with the previous generation. The next generation tended to have small families, in many cases, two children, with some having none at all. Some remained unmarried or formed unstable and short-lived relationships.
The children of that generation have had fewer children, with several refraining from marrying and reproducing. I know this pattern holds true in a lot of families, regardless of social status.
Donovan lists several factors, all of which seem to fit. He does not mention feminism, though I think most would name that as one contributor to the lower birth rate, but I suppose feminism might be subsumed under his 'careerism' category. However I think careerism among women would be the greater factor in explaining the 'birth dearth' among Whites, as many men in the past were career-obsessed, but yet fathered large families and managed to be adequate fathers. Career-minded women are more likely to have few or no children, obviously.
Interestingly, he mentions 'mental illness' as a factor in discouraging marriage and family life.
Every other young White, it seems, complains of a mental illness or problem: obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, autism or Asperger's, you name it. They have it, and it requires rafts of medication. Usually, it prevents relationships. My own circle may skew my view of the true frequency of this problem, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. What I believe to be the increased incidence of mental illness of Whites needs heavy study, but I am convinced that our racial dispossession plays an unspoken role.''
That makes sense; we touched on that in a recent discussion here about the heavy use of antidepressants among Americans. And one wonders, sometimes, if the recent 'epidemic' of mental illness represents a kind of hypochondria, based on excessive self-concern. Around this time, someone may take offense, as they have a relative who suffers from some disorder, or perhaps they themselves have been diagnosed. So if I've trodden on somebody's toes, no offense is intended, but I do know of people who excessively focus on themselves and their feelings, and who consequently make themselves to be invalids of a sort. I've also known people who obsessed over physical symptoms, and who imagined themselves to have every ailment they read about. For some people, 'mental illness' is the focus of their fear, and they hear and read these warnings from experts about how 'one in three Americans is mentally ill' or words to that effect.
Lo and behold, they begin to be sure they have a disorder. If they are meticulous and tidy, someone tells them they must have ''OCD.'' If they have moods that vary, someone says 'you must be bipolar.' A shy person must be afflicted with 'social anxiety disorder' and so on.
One external factor I can think of which discourages young White people from marriage and family formation is that most attend college (for more than four years, usually, unlike in the past) and graduate with huge student loan debts. Some that I know of graduated with $25-30,000 in student loans to repay, and I don't think that's unusual. Given the cost of living, few young people with that kind of debt are good candidates to marry and start a family soon. They just about have to pursue a lucrative career to start repaying their debts, before marriage is a possibility.
Donovan is right that most people are influenced by what their peers are doing, and that if larger families become the trendy thing to do, perhaps things will turn around. I would like to see, though, not just larger families, but stay-at-home mothers. Why have several children if the plan is to immediately return to the workplace and 'career' while the children are dropped into the laps of Third-World nannies (as is the case among many affluent couples)? I suppose a better situation would be if grandparents care for the child or children, but the optimum is for the mother to care for her own children.
In my community three (sometimes more) children are very much the norm, but I don't think this portends a new trend, necessarily; this town is populated by mostly conservative and Christian people with traditional ideas about family. But perhaps the trends will change in that direction, given the right circumstances.
Read all of Donovan's piece at the link, if you have not already done so.
He notes that most White families show the same generational pattern, with the oldest generations having come from large families, and each generation having fewer and fewer children. I think this is true of most families now, at least most White families.
My father came from a very large family (12 children, or 13 if you count the relative who was brought up as one of the household.) All these siblings married and had children, with the exception of one. None of the brothers and sisters had more than 5 children, and though that sounds like a big family to most people today, it was not, in comparison with the previous generation. The next generation tended to have small families, in many cases, two children, with some having none at all. Some remained unmarried or formed unstable and short-lived relationships.
The children of that generation have had fewer children, with several refraining from marrying and reproducing. I know this pattern holds true in a lot of families, regardless of social status.
Donovan lists several factors, all of which seem to fit. He does not mention feminism, though I think most would name that as one contributor to the lower birth rate, but I suppose feminism might be subsumed under his 'careerism' category. However I think careerism among women would be the greater factor in explaining the 'birth dearth' among Whites, as many men in the past were career-obsessed, but yet fathered large families and managed to be adequate fathers. Career-minded women are more likely to have few or no children, obviously.
Interestingly, he mentions 'mental illness' as a factor in discouraging marriage and family life.
Every other young White, it seems, complains of a mental illness or problem: obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, autism or Asperger's, you name it. They have it, and it requires rafts of medication. Usually, it prevents relationships. My own circle may skew my view of the true frequency of this problem, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. What I believe to be the increased incidence of mental illness of Whites needs heavy study, but I am convinced that our racial dispossession plays an unspoken role.''
That makes sense; we touched on that in a recent discussion here about the heavy use of antidepressants among Americans. And one wonders, sometimes, if the recent 'epidemic' of mental illness represents a kind of hypochondria, based on excessive self-concern. Around this time, someone may take offense, as they have a relative who suffers from some disorder, or perhaps they themselves have been diagnosed. So if I've trodden on somebody's toes, no offense is intended, but I do know of people who excessively focus on themselves and their feelings, and who consequently make themselves to be invalids of a sort. I've also known people who obsessed over physical symptoms, and who imagined themselves to have every ailment they read about. For some people, 'mental illness' is the focus of their fear, and they hear and read these warnings from experts about how 'one in three Americans is mentally ill' or words to that effect.
Lo and behold, they begin to be sure they have a disorder. If they are meticulous and tidy, someone tells them they must have ''OCD.'' If they have moods that vary, someone says 'you must be bipolar.' A shy person must be afflicted with 'social anxiety disorder' and so on.
One external factor I can think of which discourages young White people from marriage and family formation is that most attend college (for more than four years, usually, unlike in the past) and graduate with huge student loan debts. Some that I know of graduated with $25-30,000 in student loans to repay, and I don't think that's unusual. Given the cost of living, few young people with that kind of debt are good candidates to marry and start a family soon. They just about have to pursue a lucrative career to start repaying their debts, before marriage is a possibility.
Donovan is right that most people are influenced by what their peers are doing, and that if larger families become the trendy thing to do, perhaps things will turn around. I would like to see, though, not just larger families, but stay-at-home mothers. Why have several children if the plan is to immediately return to the workplace and 'career' while the children are dropped into the laps of Third-World nannies (as is the case among many affluent couples)? I suppose a better situation would be if grandparents care for the child or children, but the optimum is for the mother to care for her own children.
In my community three (sometimes more) children are very much the norm, but I don't think this portends a new trend, necessarily; this town is populated by mostly conservative and Christian people with traditional ideas about family. But perhaps the trends will change in that direction, given the right circumstances.
Read all of Donovan's piece at the link, if you have not already done so.
Labels: Birth Rate, Demographics, Family Unit, Racial Dispossession, Social Change
0 comment Saturday, May 24, 2014 | admin
Manuel Valdes is apparently one of those ''diversity'' writers for the AP, whose job is to present the Latin-American slant on the news. Apparently he covers the Immigration beat or the Latino turf.
You see, Anglo writers cannot present these stories in a ''fair'' fashion, so only Latino people can cover Latino-related stories, and only immigrants or those with recent immigrant roots can write about immigration. And as we are all aware, immigration these days is a Hispanic thing for the most part, so a Hispanic is needed to write these stories. And we know minorities are not capable of any bias or conflict of interest, right?
One of his recent pieces has to do with the reaction of American Indians to the Hispanic influx into Washington State, particularly central Washington, where some towns have large Mexican majorities, towns like Mattawa.
It's interesting, though, to read what some of the people of the Yakama tribe of Washington have to say about the huge presence of illegal Mexican immigrants in their area. They apparently feel resentment towards the illegals who are taking jobs from them (allegedly, of course) and they perceive that gang violence has increased with the large numbers of Mexican immigrants. Allegedly. But then, those are the same things 'alleged' by those ''anti-immigration'' people, so of course the allegations are suspect. Of course.
The Yakama Indian who is interviewed does not, apparently, limit his objections to illegal immigration only, which is to his credit. Obviously Indians need not worry about censoring themselves; I note that he does not feel compelled to tell Mr. Valdes that he has ''many Mexican friends'' or that he ''has nothing against legal immigrants.''
So Mr. Valdes brings in some Mexican voices who express displeasure with the ethnocentric ideas of the local Indians; one woman seems disgusted that Indians have such feelings. Another Latino pronounces the local Indians as no better than the gringo; the implicit attitude that I hear from the immigrants is 'why don't they just accept our takeover, and just fade away into the sunset?'
One of the favorite propaganda memes of the Mexican revanchists is that they are ''the indigenous people of the Americas'' and that they automatically have the same claims to this land as the local Indians in North America. To unwary gringos, they represent themselves as being essentially the same people as the Indians in the United States. I doubt very much that most Indians accept that strange notion; each tribe is quite conscious of their own identity; there is no monolithic ''indigenous'' group in North America, although the presence of Whites has unified the tribes in common anti-White feeling to some extent.
I am not sure if the Mexican reconquista crowd really believed their own propaganda about their being ''the indigenous people'', or if they were merely coached to say that by the leftist globalists and academic useful idiots who manipulate them. I doubt they really believe it; surely they can see that they don't even resemble the other Indian tribes very much, and I doubt that, back home in Mexico, they even wanted to claim Indian ethnicity. Most of the Mexicans I've met look down on Indians, even though most of them have considerable Indian blood. Indians in Mexico are not high up in the social hierarchy. So I think they merely call themselves ''indigenous'' for political reasons in this country, so as to manipulate that old gringo guilt, to play the race card, to give themselves some kind of false legitimacy.
I find this tactic manipulative and dishonest, lacking any sense of honor or integrity. It smacks of cynical opportunism, mixed with a little pathological lying.
I don't know if they aspire to form some kind of anti-White alliance with the Indian tribes in this country, but I think the commonalities are more imagined than real; the article illustrates that there is a gap between the Mexicans and the Indians. I suspect that any alliance between them would be an ad hoc thing, for convenience sake, but there is little love lost there. Just as Mexicans and blacks seem to clash more often than not, I think their relationship with Indians will be uneasy at best.
I wonder how the average multicultist will feel on reading this article? These kinds of disagreements between their 'victim' clients must pose problems. Who do they side with? Who is higher on their victimhood totem pole? The poor immigrants just looking for a better life while being persecuted by Whitey? Or the poor dispossesed, genocided Native American, exiled in his own land?
And while the confused leftist White is tossing a coin to decide which side is more worthy of the top victim slot, I wonder if he will take a thought for his own people, who stand in danger of becoming like the Indian, a stranger in his own land, in danger of being either mixed out of existence, or displaced?
Our Yakama Indian friend mentions that the mass influx of Mexicans is destructive to his tribe in that it has led to considerable mixing, and with that, the loss of the coherence and commonality that makes a tribe what it is. I wonder if the average White people reading the article are able to see the obvious parallel to our own situation? Do they not see that this is what is happening to our people, too?
Meanwhile the 'diversity' journalists and the corrupt old media continue to churn out their stale ''news''; at what point will people begin to notice the rank smell of propaganda that's long past its sell-by date?
Labels: Diversity, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Restrictionists, Mass Immigration, Multiracialism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Racial Division