The campaign by some Jews with access to the media to get Elena Kagan nominated for the soon-to-be vacant Supreme Court position failed —but will probably be resurrected the next time around. VDARE.com’s Patrick Cleburne has also noted the Jewish angle to the pro-Kagan campaign — suggesting that the article by Jeffrey Rosen questioning Sotomayor’s intellectual qualifications was really an attempt to promote Kagan by default. In a follow-up article, Rosen stressedthe need for the next Supreme Court nominee to be “not merely impressive but absolutely stellar.”
You can see where this is going: Kagan = brilliant — despite her less than lackluster record of academic scholarship en route to the most prestigious position in legal academia.
Writing in the LA Times, David Greenberg does his part, describing Elena Kagan as “manifestly brilliant,” and also agreeing with Cleburne that criticisms of Sotomayor were motivated by the desire to promote people like Kagan.
Of course, Jews need not fear that Sotomayor would disappoint them in her voting. Representatives of Jewish groups were actively involved in consulting about the nomination. And even though they may have preferred Kagan, they doubtless had no objections to Sotomayor.
Indeed, Sotomayor has long been courted by Jewish groups. Part of the full court press style of Jewish activism is that any person who is influential or who may at some point in the future become influential will be socialized to be sensitive to Jewish issues. And they will be scrutinized in the process, so that when the time comes, Jews can be confident that people of influence will be on board with their concerns.
In 1986 Sotomayor was invited to participate in Project Interchange, an undertaking of the American Jewish Committee aimed at providing “current and emerging United States and international leaders with an enhanced understanding of, and perspective on, Israel and the pursuit of Middle East peace through introductory educational seminars in Israel” (links in original). The people invited on these junkets are quite diverse — including members of the US military, editors of student newspapers in American universities, presidents and chancellors of American universities, French Muslim civic leaders, Pentacostal Latino clergy, and Indian-Americans.
The only thing they have in common is that at some point they may be able to influence policy toward issues important to the organized Jewish community, even if that time is a long way in the future.
Project Interchange isn’t the only such organization. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs has long promoted ties between the US and Israeli military establishments. JINSA pays for trips to Israel for retired U.S. generals and admirals who then write op-ed pieces and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. JINSA also has programs for sending US law enforcement personnel to Israel and for providing speakers at US military academies.
Since her 1986 visit to Israel, Sotomayor visited Israel again in 1996 and participated in a recent U.S.-Israel forum on immigration. She is also close friends with Project Interchange founder Debbie Berger and her husband, Paul.
Such courting of future leaders is doubtless an important aspect of Jewish activism. Whenever someone is mentioned for high office, Jewish newspapers report on his or her Jewish connections. In effect, there is a vetting process based on issues of importance to the Jewish community. And a critical part of that process is first hand, face-to-face relationships with Jews who are well-known and trusted by the wider Jewish community. In effect, Debbie and Paul Berger are vouching for Sonia Sotomayor.
The story of her life — the daughter of a Puerto Rican single mother from the Bronx, N.Y., whose ambitions knew no bounds — resounded with a community that has made the story of immigrant triumph over struggle a template of Jewish American success.
“It was impossible not to moved by her personal story,” said Mark Pelavin, the associate director of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center. “To see her mother sitting there and think about what this says about her and her country — the combination of someone who grew up in a housing project, who has been on the bench for a long time, but who has been a prosecutor as well, that combination is very powerful.”
“It was thrilling,” said Sammie Moshenberg, the Washington director of the National Council of Jewish Women.
These comments are quite similar to what Jews say when asked about why they support African Americans. As noted by historian Hasia Diner, Jews “believe that Jewish concern for black people was ‘natural,’ growing out of parallel experiences of suffering and oppression.”
There is an element of self-deception in this. The Jewish rise from immigrant poverty to elite status has virtually nothing in common with the rise of people like Sotomayor who are the beneficiaries of the post-1960s affirmative action culture of America. Whatever Jewish self conceptions of their role in American ethnic politics, the only consistent thread has been to oppose the interests of the White, European-derived majority. In addition to favoring massive non-White immigration and promoting programs that pathologize White identity and interests, making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part of that effort.
These Jewish organizations have sought close relationships with Latino organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). For example, one project of the FFEU is to organize an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties, and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort. As Paul Gottfried said about minority groups opposing dominant cultures (and I agreed), it’s not that Jews are unique in playing this game. They are just better at it than others.
I point out this rich tapestry of Jewish ethnic activism to give some idea of what those who advocate for White identity and interests are up against. Like the Obama presidency, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the sort of thing favored by the activist Jewish community because it is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.
Finally, it’s interesting that the standard line from some party strategists is that Republicans need to be very cautious in their opposition to Sotomayor because Latinos are an emerging political force. Of course, this is the same advice that these strategists give on immigration: Don’t do anything to anger the Latinos.
But of course, the reality is that Latinos are never going to be attracted to a Republican Party that is in any sense conservative, much less oriented to the interests of Whites in a way that is comparable to how the Democratic Party is oriented to the interests of non-Whites. Polls in California show that Latinos favorhigh levels of government services and are willing to raise taxes to get them. California is now in a historic budget crisis in which government services to its ever-expanding population of poor and uneducated — fueled massively by legal and illegal immigration — simply cannot be sustained without huge increases in taxes. But massive tax increases will drive out businesses and White taxpayers in droves — indeed they have already done so.
White people might well be willing to pay higher taxes if the beneficiaries were people like themselves. But most Whites are not going to vote for higher taxes when the main beneficiaries are Latinos and other non-White poor — a straightforward result of our evolutionary psychology, as Frank Salter(see alsohere)andJ. Philippe Rushtonhave shown. Instead, Whites voted overwhelmingly for a ballot proposition that would have denied services to illegal immigrants — only to be thwarted by the courts and other political elites.
Like all the great social trends, the Third Worldization of America begins in California.
A far better strategy for Republicans is to realize that their only long term hope is to become a party that explicitly (or at least implicitly) favors White people and their interests. A critical part of that process is to acknowledge that ethnic identity politics is not just for people like Sotomayor (who is a member of La Raza), Obama, and the Democratic Party.
Sotomayor is quite blunt about the role of ethnic identity in influencing judicial temperament, famously stating “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is from someone who owes pretty much her whole career to her ethnic identity and the willingness of American elites to ease her path into Princeton, Yale Law, the Circuit Court of Appeals, and now the Supreme Court of the United States.
We have to adopt the same explicit sense of White identity and interests. The Republicans seem bent on committing suicide rather than abandoning their principled hostility to ethnic identity politics for Whites. But, as Peter Brimelow notes, if that is the policy of the Republican Party, another party must and will be formed that do exactly that.
The U.S. economy will enter “hyperinflation” approaching the levels in Zimbabwe because the Federal Reserve will be reluctant to raise interest rates, investor Marc Faber said.
Prices may increase at rates “close to” Zimbabwe’s gains, Faber said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Hong Kong. Zimbabwe’s inflation rate reached 231 million percent in July, the last annual rate published by the statistics office.
“I am 100 percent sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation,” Faber said. “The problem with government debt growing so much is that when the time will come and the Fed should increase interest rates, they will be very reluctant to do so and so inflation will start to accelerate.”
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said on May 21 inflation may rise to 2.5 percent in 2011. That exceeds the central bank officials’ long-run preferred range of 1.7 percent to 2 percent and contrasts with the concerns of some officials and economists that the economic slump may provoke a broad decline in prices.
“There are some concerns of a risk from inflation from all the liquidity injected into the banking system but it’s not an immediate threat right now given all the excess capacity in the U.S. economy,” said David Cohen, head of Asian economic forecasting at Action Economics in Singapore. “I have a little more confidence that the Fed has an exit strategy for draining all the liquidity at the appropriate time.”
Action Economics is predicting inflation of minus 0.4 percent in the U.S. this year, with prices increasing by 1.8 percent and 2 percent in 2010 and 2011, respectively, Cohen said.
The U.S.’s main interest rate may need to stay near zero for several years given the recession’s depth and forecasts that unemployment will reach 9 percent or higher, Glenn Rudebusch, associate director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said yesterday.
Members of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee have held the federal funds rate, the overnight lending rate between banks, in a range of zero to 0.25 percent since December to revive lending and end the worst recession in 50 years.
The global economy won’t return to the “prosperity” of 2006 and 2007 even as it rebounds from a recession, Faber said.
Equities in the U.S. won’t fall to new lows, helped by increased money supply, he said. Still, global stocks are “rather overbought” and are “not cheap,” Faber added.
Faber still favors Asian stocks relative to U.S. government bonds and said Japanese equities may outperform many other markets over a five-year period. “Of all the regions in the world, Asia is still the most attractive by far,” he said.
Faber, the publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report, said on April 7 stocks could fall as much as 10 percent before resuming gains. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has since climbed 9 percent.
Faber, who said he’s adding to his gold investments, advised buying the precious metal at the start of its eight-year rally, when it traded for less than $300 an ounce. The metal topped $1,000 last year and traded at $949.85 an ounce at 12:50 p.m. Hong Kong time. He also told investors to bail out of U.S. stocks a week before the so-called Black Monday crash in 1987, according to his Web site.
I’m not a Brit, but as an American and an avid internet observer of the British scene, I have been fascinated to watch the rise of what might be an effective nationalist political party in Britain.
The British National Party, under its leader Nick Griffin, has been touting Britain’s elections for Members of the European Parliament, to be held on June 4, as its breakthrough. It hopes to capture five MEP seats, with the possibility of a few more if all the cards fall its way. (Which seems to be happening, as the extraordinary U.K. House of Commons expenses scandal in Westminster engulfs ever more British MPs of all parties.)
Commenters in the Brit political blogosphere predict anywhere from zero to five seats, with three as the most common guess. Any seats at all will produce public funding for the party, a very substantial boost, and will raise their visibility in Britain.
It’s happened before. Another small party, the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP], whose main plank is to take Britain out of the European Union, was very successful in the last MEP election. But UKIP contests few local elections in Britain. For the upcoming June 4 MEP election, polls show it losing ground. Part of this may be the difference in styles. BNP is a bit scruffy and makes a fuss, while UKIP appears to be much more urbane. Unhappy British voters—particularly former Labor voters—appear to like the fuss.
I know I’m not supposed to like the BNP. Because it openly states that ethnicity matters, the British press and TV treat the BNP as if it is toxic waste. The U.S. Mainstream Media follows suit, when it mentions the party at all. The BNP did rise out of the ashes of a more strident National Front Party, and some of its leaders allegedly have or have had radical links (sort of like Obama and Jeremiah Wright, although Griffin has distanced himself much more effectively). All I can say, at a distance of 3000 miles, what the BNP is actually saying and doing now looks rational, reasonable and pretty darn good to me.
Nationalist politics acknowledge the ethnic dimension of nations. Levelers assert there is no difference between peoples, and happily dilute—even replace—the heritage peoples of the West. Nowhere are they more active than in Britain.
I use the term “Heritage Peoples.” This is intuitively obvious, but let us see what BNP says about being “British”:
“We mean the bonds of culture, race, identity and roots of the native White peoples of the British Isles. We have lived in these islands near on 40,000 years. We were made by these islands, and these islands are our home. When we in the BNP talk about being British, we talk about the native peoples who have lived in these islands since before the Stone Age, and the relatively small numbers of peoples of identical race, such as the Saxons, Vikings and Normans, and the Irish, who have come here and assimilated.”[BNP FAQ, 2007]
Indeed, in an April 23 quote, Griffin himself describes the ethnic quality of Britishness in plain language:
“We don’t subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They’re not. They remain of Pakistani stock,’ he added.
“You can’t say that especially large numbers of people can come from the rest of the world and assume an English identity without denying the English their own identity, and I would say that’s wrong.
Many whites in Britain appear to be self-haters, and are quite happy to trade Cotswolds country churches for mosques and minarets. So you can imagine the calumny thrown at Griffin over this remark!
Indeed, the “racist” epithet is thrown at BNP every day. BNP replies that it prefers a truly multicultural world where British people are clearly British and peoples from other countries are likewise unmistakable in their provenance. This is not an original policy with BNP, of course—in the second half of the twentieth century colonies of whites throughout the third world were encouraged to pack up and leave.
The BNP’s policies strike me as candid and accessible. Here, for instance, is BNP policy on immigration:
“On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years.
“To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.”[Policies—BNP Website]
Here is a nationalist party that cherishes its Heritage People and states clearly the goal to retain the traditional ethnic balance of their nation. It recognizes the fact of the demographic tsunami—something even sensible observers in the U.S. shrink from doing. The BNP intends to halt the immigrant flood and roll back the replacement of its Heritage Peoples. What’s wrong with that?
Clever use of the internet has partially defused the uniformly negative media coverage of BNP. The BNP site offers fresh material daily, and it pulls no punches with its stories. There is certainly interest in the site. According to Alexa internet ratings, the BNP has far, far more traffic than Conservatives, LibDems, or Labor.
The BNP forces are also masters of the You Tube media. A single Y-T inquiry with key word “BNP” yielded forty pages of listings, albeit there were many dissenting views such as the one with the uncivilized title, “BNP Are C_nts”. Whichever side of the BNP divide you stand on, if you like your material in movie-form, it’s ready for you.
By no means is BNP a wholly electronic communicator. In those area that offer promise, BNP organizers canvas door to door with pamphlets and face-to-face explanations why BNP says, “Britain first!” This year, for the European Parliament election, it has sent out 29 million pieces of mail!
British race-relation quangos and their fellow travelers in government are well-aware of the BNP and Griffin. In December 2004, he was arrested after a covert taping (by a BBC i.e. tax-funded operative) of a speech before a private gathering. BNP and Griffin identify the increasing Muslim population in Britain as one of the chief threats to the country, and in the December 2004 meeting he was captured on tape as suggesting that Islam was a “…wicked and vicious faith.” He knew that he was treading the edge of the draconian Race Relations law, and further said he could possibly get seven years prison for such a statement. Government pursued just that course, charging four counts of “incitement to racial hatred.” Griffin was eventually acquitted on all counts. Not surprisingly, the BNP proposes to abolish all restrictions on free speech, absent only “…common law restrictions on incitement to violence…”
Another grim reminder of official antipathy: BNP membership—that is, membership in a democratic and legal political party—is grounds for local governments to sack police and teachers. In the fall of 2008 the party membership list was leaked, and many such firings occurred.
Is BNP a one-issue anti-immigration party? Widening its scope seems to have been a part of Griffin’s leadership. The issues of EU membership (out now, please), trade (mild protectionism), job protection (part of the immigration and guest worker issue), crime (unshackle police, allow persons to resist an intruder without penalty), defense (small, competent forces, avoid foreign wars), energy (develop alternative fuels and energy, promote advanced nuclear power), environment, education, and health are all covered in the manifesto. All told BNP’s policy seems to be fairly conventional nationalism, bent on internal improvement and de-emphasizing foreign involvement, with an added tinge of social democracy. Voters certainly have a choice—BNP policies are a rather stark contrast to the Lib-Lab-Con party line.
BNP strategy seems to be to build the party in disaffected regions (London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, and Burnley northeast of Liverpool are examples), and let success in electing members to local offices (town and city “councilors”) increase the appeal of their brand. BNP is eager for councilors to render good service to constituents, though of course some do poorly in the event—an artifact of governing versus merely opposing government) Electing local councilors builds the party machinery and provides experience in actual government for members, as well as building a positive picture to combat negative propaganda.
There are no BNP Members of Britain’s Parliament at this time. It takes determination, organization, and grit to make an election-winning party from scratch. But the BNP is making progress:
Total votes in General Elections
Make no mistake, the BNP remains very much a minority party. The ’05 results represent only 0.7% of the total voters, country-wide. But the 2007 Welsh showing was 4.3% of the vote, and in the ’08 London Mayoral contest more than 5% of voters went BNP. The party has discrete areas of strength, and these are where it means to win MEP seats.
The stakes are high for Britain. Shall it retain its traditional identity, or become a collection of synthetic citizens, whose opinion is perhaps better polled as mere consumer preference?
It would be interesting to see a country-wide nationalist political party in the US so straightforward in its platform, and so effective in its party-building effort. If BNP are successful on June 4, it will be a lesson to patriots throughout Europe and the US.
Stay tuned, June 4 will be here before you know it!
When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court — in Barack Obama’s America.
Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.
To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.
Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”
Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.
The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network is pleased to announce a new program, The New Nationalist Perspective, with your host, Dr. Tom Sunic, a former professor, an author, a translator and a former Croat diplomat. The show runs this Tuesday, 9pm, Eastern U.S. time.
Every week, Dr. Tom Sunic will bring VoR listeners his thoughtful perspective on matters of contemporary European and European-American identity; he will address a wide range of topics including culture, heritage and meta-politics.
About Tom Sunic
Tomislav (Tom) Sunić is a former US professor, author, translator and a former Croat diplomat. He did his undergraduate work in literature and languages in Europe. He obtained his doctoral degree in political science at the University of California. Dr. Sunić has published books and articles in French, German, English and Croatian on subjects of cultural pessimism, the psychology of communism and liberalism, and the use and abuse of modern languages in modern political discourse.
North Korea is a small place. China alone could snuff it out in a few minutes. Yet, the president of the US thinks that nothing less than the entire world is a match for North Korea.
We are witnessing the Washington gangsters construct yet another threat like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker Lindh, Hamdi, Padilla, Sami Al-Arian, Hamas, Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hapless detainees demonized by the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as “the 700 most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth,” who were tortured for six years at Gitmo only to be quietly released. Just another mistake, sorry.
The military/security complex that rules America, together with the Israel Lobby and the financial banksters, needs a long list of dangerous enemies to keep the taxpayers’ money flowing into its coffers.
The Homeland Security lobby is dependent on endless threats to convince Americans that they must forego civil liberty in order to be safe and secure.
The real question is who is going to stand up to the American and Israeli governments?
Who is going to protect Americans’ and Israelis’ civil liberties, especially those of Israeli dissenters and Israel’s Arab citizens?
Who is going to protect Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, Iranians, and Syrians from Americans and Israelis?
Not Obama, and not the right-wing brownshirts that today rule Israel.
Obama’s notion that it takes the entire world to stand up to N. Korea is mind-boggling, but this mind-boggling idea pales in comparison to Obama’s guarantee that America will protect “the peace and security of the world.”
Is this the same America that bombed Serbia, including Chinese diplomatic offices and civilian passenger trains, and pried Kosovo loose from Serbia and gave it to a gang of Muslin drug lords, lending them NATO troops to protect their operation?
Is this the same America that is responsible for approximately one million dead Iraqis, leaving orphans and widows everywhere and making refugees out of one-firth of the Iraqi population?
Is this the same America that blocked the rest of the world from condemning Israel for its murderous attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and on Gazans most recently, the same America that has covered up for Israel’s theft of Palestine over the past 60 years, a theft that has produced four million Palestinian refugees driven by Israeli violence and terror from their homes and villages?
Is this the same America that is conducting military exercises in former constituent parts of Russia and ringing Russia with missile bases?
Is this the same America that has bombed Afghanistan into rubble with massive civilian casualties?
Is this the same America that has started a horrific new war in Pakistan, a war that in its first few days has produced one million refugees?
“The peace and security of the world”? Whose world?
On his return from his consultation with Obama in Washington, the brownshirted Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that it was Israel’s responsibility to “eliminate” the “nuclear threat” from Iran.
What nuclear threat? The US intelligence agencies are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program since 2003. The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency report that there is no sign of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Who is Iran bombing? How many refugees is Iran sending fleeing for their lives?
Who is North Korea bombing?
The two great murderous, refugee-producing countries are the US and Israel. Between them, they have murdered and dislocated millions of people who were a threat to no one.
No countries on earth rival the US and Israel for barbaric murderous violence.
But Obama gives assurances that the US will protect “the peace and security of the world.” And the brownshirt Netanyahu assures the world that Israel will save it from the “Iranian threat.”
Amid all the Western panic at the prospect of North Korea’s Kim Jong-il, the hereditary Communist monarch of the Hermit Kingdom, wielding a nuclear arsenal, we would be well-advised to take a chill pill, as Kim Sunn-joo – a Korean travel agent cited in this piece on the “crisis” – advises:
“I see this test as North Korea’s marketing strategy. They just seem to be playing games. I wouldn’t say that South Korea is completely free of danger, but I don’t think we are any more in danger than we were before. People here are used to these kinds of threats.”
Okay, so they’re playing games, but what kind of games – and what is the prize?
There are two theories about this. The first is that the North Koreans are desperate to normalize relations with the West, insofar as the most secretive, repressive, and downright loopy neo-Stalinist regime on earth can hope to achieve some semblance of normality.
Essential to understanding the comic-opera belligerence of the North Korean regime is the fact that the Korean War never ended: a truce was declared, but the formalities of ending the conflict have never been performed. South Korea refused to sign the Korean War Armistice Agreement, and the two sides are technically still at war, after all these years.
To the North Koreans, who are especially prickly and sensitive when it comes to matters of “face,” this is a living issue, one that has a definite effect on their behavior in the present. Any U.S. president who entertains the idea of resolving the ongoing series of crises that erupt on the Korean peninsula with clock-like regularity has to be prepared to revisit this entire issue of the war that never officially ended.
It is clear that the Korean question, if it is to be resolved, cannot be approached militarily. No one, not even the nuttiest neocon, contemplates attacking the North and effecting “regime change.” This leaves negotiations, but the problem here is twofold.
First, the U.S. has insisted on dragging other nations into the talks, so that we have the so-called Six-Party Talks: the North, the South, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, and the U.S. Predictably, however, these talks have gone nowhere fast, partially because the North insists on dealing directly with its real antagonists, who are still occupying South Korea after all this time. Pyongyang wants to deal directly with Washington, and one can hardly blame them: after all, the current president of the U.S. has declared that he’ll talk directly to the Iranians, a step that no U.S. chief executive has taken since U.S.-Iranian relations were broken off in the Carter years. Why not the North Koreans? After all, Kim Jong-il is no crazier than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – or, at least, it’s a horse race.
Secondly, a new factor has recently entered the equation, and that is the apparent incapacity of Kim Jong-il, 66, said to have suffered a stroke last August. These reports call into question his role in policymaking decisions and raise the issue of just who is in control of North Korea’s nuclear program. You can’t negotiate if there’s no one to negotiate with.
Which brings us to the second theory about why Pyongyang is popping up like a grotesque jack-in-the-box, every few months, with a new outrage against international order: it’s all about internal North Korean politics and the question of who will succeed Kim Jong-il as the next “Dear Leader.” To understand what may be going on inside the notoriously closed society of North Korea, it is necessary to give a little context.
The North Korean regime was created by the Soviet Union after its armies “liberated” the North from Japanese occupation at the end of World War II. There weren’t a whole lot of Communists who lived in the North – the membership of the official Communist Party was largely confined to the southern, urban regions – and the Soviets had to make do. The regime and the Communist (Workers) Party of North Korea were basically cobbled together out of a number of various and often competing communist organizations, some with roots in China, others with roots in the South, and others coming directly from the Soviet Union as translators and “advisers.” A fourth group, the smallest, was associated with the future “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung’s Manchurian guerrilla campaign against the Japanese, which eventually was defeated. Kim Il-sung fled to the Soviet Union until he arrived back in his home country via a Soviet destroyer and was installed in power by the Red Army.
These four factions balanced each other out in the early years of the regime, when the cult of personality around Kim Il-Sung was in its infancy and had yet to tighten its grip on the party and the nation. This rough parity was upset, however, in 1956, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev launched an ideological “reevaluation” of the Stalin years at the CPSU’s 20th Party Congress. His famous speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes sent shock waves through the international communist movement. The Khrushchevite critique of Stalin could be easily applied to the cult that was developing around Kim Il-sung, and the remnants of the Soviet and Chinese factions within the North Korean Workers Party took the opportunity to raise their heads. At a meeting of the party cadres, Yun Kong-hum, a member of the Soviet faction, rose to give a speech attacking the Kim Il-sung personality cult. The leadership, however, was prepared: he was met with a chorus of jeering, and his words were lost in the tumult. Shortly after the meeting, he and his factional cohorts fled to China. Those who stayed behind were purged from their party positions, and a great many were taken out and shot.
It was at this point that the North Koreans began to go their own way and veer out of the Sino-Soviet orbit. Convinced that Beijing and Moscow were trying to control events in North Korea, Kim Il-sung began to play a delicate balancing act, resisting pressure from his Communist allies to moderate his policies and subtly playing off one against the other. This strategy was greatly facilitated by the impending Sino-Soviet split, which began to go public in 1957.
The idea was to isolate North Korea from “foreign” influences, namely the Soviets and later the Chinese, both of whose supporters within the North Korean Workers Party were systematically purged, imprisoned, and executed over the years. Yet there was a problem with this strategy, embodied in Juche, roughly translated as “self-reliance”: the country was and is desperately poor, and this policy of self-isolation only exacerbated a situation that has, today, become nearly intolerable.
When Khrushchev greatly reduced Soviet aid to Pyongyang – which amounted to around 30 percent of the government’s gross receipts – the country plummeted into an economic free-fall from which it never really recovered. Today, North Korea teeters on the brink of famine, which has already claimed many thousands of lives, and the people are literally eating the bark off of trees.
Now, every regime, no matter how tyrannical, depends to a large extent on the consent of the people. What prevents them from rising up and overthrowing their oppressors is the conviction that they’re being protected from a much greater danger, and, in North Korea’s case, it’s the bugaboo of foreign occupation. Draconian economic sanctions imposed by the West reinforce this general impression and give the regime’s insistence that the Americans and South Koreans are about to invade enough credibility to increase the public’s tolerance of Kim Jong-il’s antics.
This is what gives President Barack Obama’s recent comments on the latest crisis a darkly humorous tone. He said that the world has got to “stand up to North Korea.” The truth, however, from a North Korean perspective, is precisely the opposite: in their view, it is North Korea that is standing up to the world. So much of the Western commentary on the North Korean issue notes that the nuclear test generated firepower equivalent to the blasts that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – acts carried out by the United States against a prostrate Japan. It is certainly not lost on the North Koreans that the U.S. could just as easily rationalize a similar attack on yet another nation of yellow-skinned people.
In spite of all the hysteria surrounding North Korea’s nukes, and the rather perfervid and technically dubious assertions that they’re capable of launching a ballistic missile attack on Alaska, or even Los Angeles, the reality is that we represent more of a credible threat to them than they could ever hope to mount against us. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is primitive, and they couldn’t construct a nuclear weapon that is stable and usable for years to come, if ever. We, however, could wipe them off the map, if we so chose, and therein lies the key to understanding their crazed course.
They are like those suicide bombers who face an enemy they cannot possibly hope to defeat in conventional warfare, yet there is a difference: Pyongyang must convince us that they are ready, willing, and able to strike, without actually doing so, because a military conflict would almost certainly deprive them of power. However, in order to keep that power, they must convince the populace that they are surrounded by enemies who are just about ready to invade. The war threat keeps the population in line and effectively prevents any repetition of the 1956 factional rebellion that openly challenged the Juche regime.
So what does the West do? After all, who knows what crazed course Kim Jong-il will take? He seems erratic, at best, and, what’s more, there seems to be a new faction arising in the military, hardliners who want no compromise with the West and are prepared to go to war if that’s what it takes to maintain the stability of the regime.
The only rational policy is to avoid provocations at all costs. Nothing justifies going to war, and it is unlikely that the North Koreans are so completely out of it that they’ll launch a first strike on the South – which would incapacitate the entire Korean peninsula. A strike at Japan, which the Japanese greatly – and rightly – fear is probably not in the cards, either, although I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. What’s more probable, however, is a Chernobyl-type nuclear accident involving the North’s nuclear facilities. Their program is primitive and their scientific prowess less than reassuring. This is a disaster just waiting to happen – which is one good reason why some sort of rapprochement is imperative.
The West, however, holds a trump card that requires no action on their part, and that is the inherent instability of the regime. No matter how much it inveighs against the “Western plot” against North Korea’s independence and economic well-being, it is the regime itself that is the real obstacle to the nation’s development. North Korea is a giant pressure cooker just waiting to go off, and, left alone, it will explode. It’s only a matter of time.
The explosion, when it comes, as it did in East Germany and the rest of the Soviet bloc, will bring down the heirs of Kim Il-sung and toss the regime into the dustbin of history. The social chaos that ensues will naturally spill over into the South, as well as China, and the repercussions will be severe – but far less life-threatening than a military conflict, which will plunge the entire region into an abyss it will take many years to climb out of.
The U.S., under Bush, consistently blocked attempts by the North and the South to come to some kind of accommodation. Our policies have clashed with the deeply ingrained nationalism of the Korean people, and the history of our collaboration with despotic Southern rulers is a long and shameful one. Pressure on the regime to give up its nuclear program only yields defiance. The best we can do is wait and let nature – in the form of a natural human resistance to intolerable conditions of privation and repression – take its course.
I haven’t said anything yet on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and one reason has been that I did not know much about her outside of the Greenwald-Rosen clash a few weeks ago. I’m not sure that I know that much more about her now, but I can say something about the responses to her nomination. It seems somewhat telling that even Rosen, who wrote what Greenwald reasonably regarded as a shabby smear job, presently supports her confirmation. As Noah Millman has observed, the main thing that is regularly included in the charges against her is her position on the Ricci case. Also looming large in the arguments against her are the remarks she made in a speech eight years ago, including this quote:
I would hope [bold mine-DL] that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Apparently, in the same speech, according to National Journal’s Stuart Taylor, “she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” ”
There is a great deal of teeth-gnashing about double standards going on right now. Taylor sums up this complaint:
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
What goes unsaid here is that this would be the wrong thing to do, which makes it unclear why Sotomayor should be punished for saying something that does not seem in itself all that objectionable. I agree that a double standard exists, which tells me that we should not apply an unreasonable standard equally, but instead should try to police and stigmatize expression less obsessively. Note also that the supposed “claim of ethnic and gender superiority,” as Taylor puts it, is exceedingly weak, if it is there at all. The first quote can just barely be read this way if you really want to read it that way, and the second does not refer to superiority, but only to difference. Since when have people on the right denied or complained about recognition of the importance of real physiological and cultural differences?
Of course, the first quote expresses at most an aspiration or desire that her kind of experience would make her a better judge. Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man’s faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor’s rather mild comments make her a “racialist.”
On her vote in the Ricci case, it is fair to conclude that she and her colleagues came to the wrong conclusion as far as doing right by the plaintiff was concerned, but it also seems fair to say that federal law pushed them in the direction of reaching the wrong conclusion. An important point about the case that has been left out in many accounts is this:
In part, the city’s reaction was defensive. Because of the magnitude of the racial disparity on the exams, which would have ensured that white firefighters received the great majority of the promotions, an attorney for the city concluded that there was a strong likelihood of a lawsuit by African American and Latino firefighters if the promotion list generated by the test were used. Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.”
What this means is that the appeals court ruled against Ricci because it recognized that New Haven had tried to avoid a lawsuit that would have been possible and likely successful because of current law. In other words, the city tried to avoid falling afoul of the law, and the court did not penalize it for doing so. What is to blame in all of this is the law, rather than the judges who seem to have done what they were supposed to do. Indeed, what some people seem to have wanted to see Sotomayor do is to punish New Haven for trying to stay within the limits of the law, and for failing to do so she is declared to be an enemy of the rule of law. I submit that this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Perhaps I have missed something, but the injustice done to Ricci seems in no small part to be a product of the law as it exists. However, under current law, even granting that the city of New Haven seems to have bungled the handling of the promotion test for its firefighters, it does not necessarily follow that throwing out the test results from the apparently flawed test was a violation of anyone’s legal rights. Presumably had Sotomayor found for the plaintiff, we would now be hearing about how all that infamous “empathy” caused her to side with the dyslexic man against a municipality–oh, the judicial activism!–and to open the latter up to long and costly litigation (which would, of course, demonstrate her abiding love of greedy trial lawyers, her desire to enrich fellow minorities and her hatred of patriotic firefighters, as so many people would be only too happy to tell us).
P.S. Also note that cheering “when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing” is basically incompatible with complaining about what Sotomayor and the court did in the Ricci case. We keep hearing about how she thinks judges make policy–but instead, the court she sat on refused to make policy in this instance. Arguably, Ricci is one of those hard cases in which empathy is supposed to be crucial, but instead the result ended up looking a lot more like giving both sides a fair hearing and coming down on the politically incorrect (in the conservative view) side. We keep hearing about the dangers of empathy, but what was the denial of Ricci’s suit except an example of siding with the relatively more powerful (the city government) against the relatively weak (a dyslexic employee)? It seems to me that you can object to her position on Ricci’s suit, but if you do you can’t then say that she is guided by bleeding-heart sentimentality.
I want to examine the changing nature of Britishness resulting from the immigration non-Europeans, particularly in the light of IQ differences between immigrants and the native white population.My approach differs from currentdebates aboutimmigration which are normally concentrated on whether it is good or bad for Britain, and whether we need more of it or less, and not on the quality of the immigrants or their racial identity.
Race And IQ
In my recent review of the research on race differences in intelligence that has been carried out over the last eighty years I have set the British IQ at 100 and shown that other Europeans have the same average IQ, except in the Balkans where it drops to around 93. Outside of Europe, the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. The South Asians and North Africans have an average IQ of 84, the Caribbeans an IQ of 71, and the blacks of sub-Saharan African an IQ of 67.
These racial IQs appear to be about fifty per cent genetically determined and about fifty per cent environmentally determined. This means that when these peoples migrate to Britain they enter a much better environment, particularly as regards nutrition, health care and education, so their IQs increase by about fifty per cent. Thus the IQs of South Asians and North Africans increase to around 92, while the IQs of Caribbeans and African blacks increase to around 86.
The low IQ of blacks was been understood from everyday observation long before it became established by intelligence tests. For instance, in the eighteenth century David Hume wrote that “I am apt to suspect that Negroes are naturally inferior to whites. There is no ingenious manufacture amongst them, no arts, no sciences”. The first explorers of Africa reached the same conclusion. Mungo Park, who visited west Africa in 1795 and made his way up the Gambia and Niger rivers, noted that the African peoples had no written language and little that could be described as civilisation. He described the Africans as living in “small and incommodious hovels: a circular mud wall about four feet high, upon which is placed a conical roof, composed of bamboo cane, and thatched with grass, forms alike the palace of the king and the hovel of the slave”.
The explanation for these race differences in intelligence that has become widely accepted is that humans evolved in equatorial East Africa. About 100,000 years ago some groups migrated northwards into North Africa and then into Asia and Europe. These groups encountered a more challenging environment in which there were no plant or insect foods for much of the year, so they had to hunt large animals like mammoths to obtain their food. They also had to keep warm and for this they needed to make clothes and shelters. These problems became much greater in the last ice age that began about 28,000 years ago and lasted until about 11,000 years ago. All these challenges required higher intelligence. Only the more intelligent were able to survive in these harsh environments while the less intelligent perished. One result of this was that the brain size of the European and East Asian peoples increased to accommodate the greater intelligence required to overcome these problems.
These racial differences in intelligence are one of the most important reasons for the differences in the wealth and poverty of nations that are present throughout the world (the other main reason being the presence of a market economy or of some form of socialism or communism). Intelligence is a major determinant of competence and earning capacity, so inevitably the European and Far Eastern peoples whose populations are intelligent achieve higher standards of living than other peoples who are less intelligent.
This is often called the North-South divide, consisting of the rich north of Europe, North America and Japan, and the poor south consisting of South Asian, Africa and Latin America, but this is just a euphemism for the rich European and Far Eastern peoples who happen to live mainly in the northern hemisphere and the poor South Asians, Africans and Latin Americans who live in the south. These differences in wealth are largely caused by racial differences in intelligence.
Because of this the idea that they can be eliminated and that we can “make poverty history” by writing off debts and providing more aid is doomed to failure.
When non-European peoples migrate to Europe and North America their lower IQs make it difficult for them to cope in economically developed societies. The effect of race differences in IQ on the ability to cope was shown for the United States by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their book The Bell Curve. Here they showed that blacks with an average IQ of 85 perform poorly in education and earnings, while they have high rates of crime, welfare dependency and unemployment. Hispanics with a somewhat higher average IQ (typically found to be about 89) do somewhat better, while whites and Asians (“the model minority”) do best.
Similar racial differences have been found in Britain. The Chinese East Asians perform best in educational attainment and have the lowest percentage of school exclusions and crime. The native British come next, followed by the South Asians from the Indian sub-Continent, while the blacks perform worst. We see this for educational attainment in A levels in Table 1 (the scores are calculated by counting A grades as 10, B grades as 8, etc. and are published by the Department for Education and Skills). [Vdare.com note: A Levels are the British equivalent of American Advanced Placement courses.]
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s demonstration in The Bell Curve that in the United States racial IQs are related to crime rates is equally true in Britain. Table 2 shows the U.K. Home Office figures for the crime rates whites, Chinese, South Asians and Blacks. These statistics are for men in prison in relation to their numbers in the population and are expressed as odds ratios in which the white rate is set at 1.0 and the rates of the other groups are expressed as multiples of this. Thus the Chinese rate is 0.7 of the white rate, while the South Asian rate is 1.3 times the white rate, and the Black rate is 8.1 times the white rate.
This implies that racial prejudice in the police and judicial system are partly responsible, although Sir Michael does not offer any explanation for why the South Asian crime rate is only marginally higher than the white, or for the much lower crime rate of the Chinese.
Table 2. Crime rates (Men)
Crime: Odds ratios
[Home Office. Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System. London: Home , 1998 PDF]
There appear to be three reasons why racial IQs are related to crime rates.
First, those with low IQs are less able to understand the adverse cost of being caught and punished.
Second, boys with low IQs do badly at school and typically live with others who also do badly at school. As a result the whole subculture becomes alienated from school and society and sees little prospect of earning a good living by gainful employment. Crime seems to offer an attractive alternative. Alienation from school leads to disruptive behaviour that eventually leads to expulsion or exclusion.
Thus the race differences in school exclusions published by the Department for Education and Skills are similar to those in IQ, educational attainment and crime. Figures for recent years are shown in Table 3. We see here that Chinese are only excluded at one-fifth the rate of whites. The South Asian exclusion rate is about the same, while the Black rate is 4.4 times greater.
Table 3. School exclusions
A third reason for the high rates of crime and school exclusions of Blacks seems to be that, in addition to their low IQ, Blacks have short time horizons such that they do not look ahead at the likely future consequences of their actions.
This characteristic has frequently been noted. For instance, John Speke who explored East Africa in the 1860s and discovered the source of the Nile, described the typical African as “a creature of impulse – a grown child”.
At about the same time Anthony Trollope, the British novelist, visited the Caribbean and wrote up his impressions in his bookThe West Indies and the Spanish Main. Here he described the characteristics of the Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians and Mulattos, and wrote of the Blacks that “they have no care for tomorrow, but they delight in being gaudy for today. Their crimes are those of momentary impulse”.
Immigration Into The White World
The numbers of non-Europeans in Britain have been growing steadily since the British Nationality Act of 1948 conferred the right of citizenship and abode on all members of the British Commonwealth and Empire.
This trend is shown in Table 4 taken from the census returns of 1951, 1961, 1971 and 2001, and projected forward in time to 2031 and 2061. We see that the non-European population increased around ten fold from 1961 to 2001, and about 4.5 fold from 1971 to 2001. The projections extrapolate the 4.5 fold increase over the 30 year period from 1971 to 2001 forward to 2031 and again to 2061. We see that the numbers of non-Europeans are projected to reach around 15.5 million by 2031 and 70 mi1lion in 2061.
Over the same period the numbers of white can be projected to decline because whites have approximately 1.6 children per couple. The effect of this is likely to be that the numbers of whites will decline from around 55 million in 2001 to around 34 million in 2061. Hence by 2061 about two thirds of the population of Britain will be of non-European origin, while about one third will be white.
Table 4. The numbers of non-Europeans in Britain
These projections are “guesstimates” – reasonable or perhaps not so reasonable guesses about what the future may bring – and perhaps some people will say that this could not possibly happen.
But why not? There is little reason to suppose that the principal factors responsible for the growth in the numbers of non-Europeans in Britain is likely to change.
Consider the reasons for growth of non-European population.
First, theyare entering Britain as asylum seekers and this is likely to continue.
The number of asylum seekers from Africa in 1981 was 108,000. By 2001, it was 480,000, an increase of more than fourfold over a period of only 20 years. As word spreads through Africa that entry to Britain is easy and life much better than in Africa, the numbers are likely to increase further. Most asylum seekers are refused asylum, but very few are actually deported. This is because of the problems of finding them and when they are found they often refuse to disclose where they have come from, so it is not possible to deport them.
Once they are in Britain they have little difficulty in finding somewhere to live, often provided by local authorities, and they either find work or obtain social security unemployment payments. This also is very difficult to stop.
Third, many enter Britain legally as visitors and students, and stay on indefinitely.
Fourth, many more enter Britain legally through arranged marriages.
This is especially common among the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, more than half of whom marry spouses from their home country and bring their spouses to Britain. Other illegals simply pay someone to go through a marriage ceremony with a British national through which they acquire citizenship.
Fifth, non-Europeans (except for the Chinese) have more children than whites.
The numbers of children of various immigrant groups found in the 2001 census are shown in Table 5. It will be seen that the white fertility rate is 1.6 children per woman, while blacks and the Indians have about 30 percent more children than whites at 2.2 and 2.3. The Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Somalis have 5.0, more than three times the number of children as whites.
The higher fertility of non-Europeans tends to decline in the second and third generations but not to the low level of whites.
All of these five causes of the growth of the growth in the numbers of non-Europeans in Britain would be very difficult to stop or even to reduce.
The problem lies in the nature of democracy. In democracies, politicians think short term. Their objective is to win an election in two, three or maybe four years’ time. Politicians cannot afford to antagonize minorities with votes for the sake of long term benefits for the nation.
The growth of the numbers of non-Europeans is not peculiar to Britain. It is taking place throughout Western Europe, in the United States, Canada and Australia. Professor David Coleman has given figures for the percentages of non-Europeans in six European countries in the year 2000 and projected figures for the year 2050. These are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Percentages of non-European peoples in six European countries, 2000 and 2050
The figures for the percentages of non-Europeans in six European countries in the year 2000 are underestimates because they are taken from census returns which do not include third generation immigrants (these are counted as indigenous), and because a number immigrants do not fill in census forms—especially illegals, for obvious reasons. The projected figures for the year 2050 are also probably underestimates because they assume that the fertility of immigrants will soon fall to that of whites, which they may well not. Coleman has given the statistics on the fertility (Total Fertility Rates) of Europeans and non-Europeans in France, the Netherlands and Sweden shown in Table 7.
It will be seen that in all three countries the non-Europeans have about fifty per cent more children that the indigenous populations. Inevitably, the proportion of non-Europeans in the population will increase from higher fertility alone.
Table 7. Total Fertility Rates of Europeans and non-Europeans, 2000
Non-Europeans are also increasing as a percentage of the population in the United States. Most of these are from Mexico and are Native American Indians or Mestizos (mixed race European and Native American Indian), but there are also substantial numbers of Blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, and of Asians. Altogether these entering the United States at more than 1 million a year.
The Bureau of the Census estimates that the percentage of Europeans in the population, which stood at 90 per cent in 1940, had fallen to 71 per cent by 2000 and is projected to be 40 per cent by the year 2100 (these projections assume that the fertility of immigrants will fall to almost the same figure as that as of whites, which may well be considered improbable).
Only one conclusion is possible. The rate of increase of the non-European population could be slower or it could be faster than the projections given in Table 4 but the broad picture is clear and inescapable: at some point in the foreseeable future the white British people will become a minority in these islands, and whites will likewise become minorities throughout the economically developed nations of European peoples.
As the proportion of non-Europeans grows in Europe and in the United States (and also in Canada and Australia) and eventually become majorities, the intelligence of the populations will fall. The strength of the economies will equally inevitably decline to the level of developing nations.
World leadership will pass to Russia and Eastern Europe, and to China and Japan, if these manage to resist the invasion of non- European peoples.
We are living in an extraordinary time. Nothing like this has ever occurred in human history. Mass immigration of non-Europeans will inevitably result in the European peoples becoming minorities and then increasingly small minorities in their own countries, as they are in most of Latin America and the Caribbean islands. Throughout the Western world the European peoples are allowing themselves to be replaced in their own homelands by non-Europeans.
What is even more remarkable is that the European peoples have become quite complacent about their own elimination. Some even welcome it. Hardly a week goes by without some intellectual or politician declaring that immigration has been good for the country, that “in our diversity is our strength” and “we must celebrate our differences”.
Country risks further international isolation as underground nuclear explosion triggers earthquake
[Monday 25 May 2009]
North Korea today risked further international isolation after it claimed to have successfully tested a nuclear weapon as powerful as the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
The test comes less than two months after the North enraged the US and its allies by test firing a long-range ballistic missile.
The KNCA news agency, the regime’s official mouthpiece, said: “We have successfully conducted another nuclear test on 25 May as part of the republic’s measures to strengthen its nuclear deterrent.”
Officials in South Korea said they had detected a tremor consistent with those caused by an underground nuclear explosion. The country’s Yonhap news agency reported that the North had test-fired three short-range missiles from a base on the east coast immediately after the nuclear test.
The underground atomic explosion, at 9.54am local time (0154 BST), created an earthquake measuring magnitude 4.5 in Kilju county in the country’s north-east, reports said.
President Barack Obama called the test a matter of grave concern to all countries. “North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community,” he said in a statement. “North Korea’s behaviour increases tensions and undermines stability in north-east Asia.”
He added that North Korea’s behaviour would serve only to deepen the country’s isolation.
“It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery,” he said.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was “deeply worried” by the development.
The UN security council will hold an emergency meeting in New York later today to discuss its response to the latest escalation in the crisis. Obama and other leaders did not offer details on the council’s possible response.
China, North Korea’s key ally, said it was “resolutely opposed” to the test, urging its neighbour to avoid actions that would sharpen tensions and return to six-party arms-for-disarmament talks.
Japan, which considers itself high on the North’s potential hit list, said it would seek a new resolution condemning the test.
Russian defence experts estimated the explosion’s yield at between 10 and 20 kilotons, many times more than the 1 kiloton measured in its first nuclear test in 2006 and about as powerful as the bombs the US used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the second world war. One kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tonnes of TNT.
The force of the blast made the ground tremble in the Chinese border city of Yanji, 130 miles away.
The North Korean news agency said the test had been “safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control. The test will contribute to defending the sovereignty of the country and the nation and socialism and ensuring peace and security on the Korean peninsula and the region.”
Gordon Brown described the test as “erroneous, misguided and a danger to the world”. The prime minister added: “This act will undermine prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula and will do nothing for North Korea’s security.”
South Korea condemned the test, North Korea’s second since it exploded its first nuclear device in October 2006 in defiance of international opinion. That test prompted the UN to pass a resolution banning Pyongyang from activities related to its ballistic missile programme.
The South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, convened a session of the country’s security council after seismologists reported earthquakes in the Kilju region, site of the North’s first nuclear test.
In Tokyo, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Takeo Kawamura, said the test was “a clear violation of the UN security council resolution and cannot be tolerated”.
North Korea had warned of a second nuclear test after the UN condemned its test-launch of a ballistic missile on 5 April and agreed to tighten sanctions put in place in 2006.
Pyongyang insisted it had put a peaceful communications satellite in orbit, but experts said the technology and methods were identical to those used to launch a long-range Taepodong-2 missile.
After the UN refused to apologise for condemning the launch, North Korea expelled international inspectors, threatened to restart its Yongbyon nuclear reactor – which it had agreed to start dismantling in 2007 – and walked away from six-party nuclear talks.
Today’s test will add to fears that the North is moving closer to possessing the ability to mount a nuclear warhead on long-range missiles that are capable, in theory, of reaching Hawaii and Alaska.
“This test, if confirmed, could indicate North Korea’s decision to work at securing actual nuclear capabilities,” Koh Yu-hwan, a professor at Dongkuk University in Seoul, told Reuters.
“North Korea had been expecting the new US administration to mark a shift from the previous administration’s stance, but is realising that there are no changes. It may have decided that a second test was necessary. [It] seems to be reacting to the US and South Korean administrations’ policies.”
Analysts believe the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, hopes to use the test to shore up support from the military amid mounting speculation that he is about to name one of his three sons as his successor.
Kim, 67, appears to be re-establishing his grip on power since reportedly suffering a stroke last August. Today’s test is a direct challenge to attempts by Obama to engage the North and stem the spread of nuclear weapons.
Despite promising a fresh start to bilateral relations, Obama, who denounced last month’s missile launch as “a provocation,” has so far failed to persuade North Korean to enter into negotiations.
Kim Myong-chol, executive director of the Centre for Korean-American Peace in Tokyo, who is close to Pyongyang, said the test was a reminder that North Korea “is going it alone as a nuclear power”.
“North Korea doesn’t need any talks with America. America is tricky and undesirable,” he said. “It does not implement its own agreements.
“We are not going to worry about sanctions. If they sanction us, we will become more powerful. Sanctions never help America; they are counter-productive … We don’t care about America and what they say.”
One would think that an award-winning journalist writing for a national “quality” newspaper and with access to some of the most eminent personages of the age would be capable of penning an intelligent article about an unconventional politician, providing novel insights and depth of analysis where his lesser peers would have been content with a facile regurgitation of clichés. Unfortunately, we live in an age when, not originality of approach or sophistication of insight, but blind subjection to Freudo-Marxist dogma and crass fealty to the state-sponsored party line are the key to achieving recognition in a journalistic career.
Nigel Farndale’s recent piece for the Daily Telegraph on the launch of the British National Party’s European election manifesto offers yet more evidence — if any was needed — of the vulgar extent to which the mainstream media routinely insult the intelligence of educated readers and seek to manufacture opinion in an effort to perpetuate the existing establishment, of which they are a part and the main organ of communication.
I have never been a member of a political party and I have no links to the BNP, but, quite frankly, I am tired of the crude attempts constantly made by the mainstream corporate media to get me to hate this particular organization. Their techniques deserve exposure.
Political analysts expect the BNP to benefit substantially in the upcoming electoral contest from the recent corruption scandals and the catastrophic policy failures afflicting the main political parties. Yet (and as is typical whenever the BNP is in the press), instead of offering his readers a unique insight into the BNP’s leader, Farndale has treated them to an odious effusion of bigotry, replete with invidious cartoonifications, tendentious phraseology, loaded ellipses, malevolent punctuation, snide quotation marks, bizarre logic, deliberately wrong-headed assumptions, and a slew of sniffy, hostile, self-righteous a prioris.
Mr. Farndale begins by suggesting that politics outside what is offered by the likes of Gordon Brown and David Cameron (and by implication, the “respectable” political parties) are decidedly illegitimate: a sinister, semi-criminal endeavor, existing in an underworld dominated by violence and fear. This is rather comical, considering that, not only have Labour and the Conservatives been exposed recently as a malebolge of corruption (staffed by a shadowy freakshow of venal kleptomaniacs), but they also offer nearly identical propositions — policies that are decidedly illegitimate and dominated by violence and fear: more immigration, more debt, more support for Israel, more Islamic extremism, more foreign wars, more political correctness, more state surveillance and terror, and more and higher taxes and inflation to pay for it all.
Mr. Farndale’s characterization of the BNP’s cautious logistics is also perversely disingenuous, considering that BNP members have for decades been subjected to state-sponsored harassment, intimidation, and violence at the hands of prognathous Marxist hoodlumswhose conception of a political debate equates reasoned argument with clubs, boots, and knuckledusters.
Mr. Farndale reports surprise that patriotic, professionally employed men and women dared stand in front of the BNP meeting venue sporting red, white, and blue BNP rosettes — not because he is concerned this might pose a security risk for them, but because in his mind patriotic, professionally employed men and women vote for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron. In Farndale’s world, the town should have been up in arms, shouting truculence and waving pitchforks in the air, hounding the rosette-bearers out of town, out of the country, out of the planet, out of the galaxy, out of the universe, and out of existence altogether.
It does not occur to him, even though he refers to last year’s leaked party membership list, that when the BNP assert in their slogan “People like you voting BNP,” that “people like you” is meant to refer, not to Whites, but to normal, happy, family-oriented people — people like those comprising much of the aforementioned membership list — as opposed to, as Griffin confirms in the subsequent interview, the orangutanaceous skinheads Mr. Farndale and media people like him portray them to be.
He does, however, imply that the “white van men and nightclub bouncers you would expect” (who is “you”?) are abnormal people. Admittedly, they might not be the most loved of species — after all, who among the liberal elite has any sympathy for working class White people, who are most impacted by the piledriving of multiculturalism into the United Kingdom. But, surely, in as much as they are not effete metrosexuals, fashion-conscious literatti, hirsute ball-busting feminists, Molotov-throwing Marxists, profligate New Labour embezzlers, cosmetically-enhanced celebrities, exploding Islamists, aggrieved Black revisionists, academic fraudsters, kleptomaniacal plutocrats, militant homosexuals, pious egalitarians, or some of the other zoological specimens of equally perplexing taxonomy that comprise the Left’s core support base, they are probably more normal than the likes of Mr. Farndale are prepared to admit.
Curiously, however, Mr. Farndale reproaches the BNP for using what he terms “the language of otherness, of fear.” Yet, is he not using the same language when reporting on the BNP’s European election manifesto launch?
Farnsdal’s language of otherness is evident when he reports that the mainstream parties — whose remit, in a sane world, ought to have been the representation, defense, and advancement of British interests, both at home and abroad — are so terrified of the BNP that they either refuse to even name the party in their public discussions or are already spending taxpayers’ money to “stop the BNP” – in other words, to limit, restrict, and eliminate taxpayers’ options at the ballot box. One would have expected Mr. Farndale to ask, in outrage, What kind of democracy do we live in, where democratically elected politicians plunder the public purse to prevent a democratic election from taking place?
Unfortunately, Mr. Farndale did not ask this question, and seemed rather to tacitly approve of such totalitarian practices — some could well argue they are worthy of Maoist China. And is it surprising, then, that BNP supporters regard the mainstream political parties as a single block, more interested in perpetuating themselves than in safeguarding people’s freedom of expression, both inside and outside the ballot box?
Another of Mr. Farndale’s exasperating contradictions is his equating with thuggishness and lack of patriotism any concern for the ability of Britain to preserve its indigenous customs, traditions, and way of life, as well as its right to choose its destiny in a manner that fits the desires and sensibilities of the peoples who built and defined the character of the nation. He writes:
Grotesquely, given the British were fighting the Nazis in the war, Griffin compares June 4 to D-Day…
— somehow forgetting that the war was fought ostensibly to preserve the British way of life. Where is the inconsistency with the BNP policy?
Outrageously, in his mind, it is ‘thuggish’ to vocally oppose Islam’s conquest of Britain — an already ongoing process, anticipated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and yearned for by our now disgraced Justice Minister, that would be accelerated by the accession of Turkey into the EU, since Britain, by virtue of its wealth and relatively generous minimum wave legislation, would indeed attract millions of low-wage Turkish Muslims, who, like earlier Commonwealth imports, would in time desire progressively greater juridical recognition, concessions, and accommodation.
I wonder if Mr. Farndale, a married man, has contemplated the prospect of British women being treated as second class citizens, forced to wear burqas and undergo cliterodectomies and infibulations, as is the case in a number of Muslim countries, for if Islam ever becomes the dominant religion in this country, British laws and customs will eventually be changed to reflect Muslim priorities, sensibilities, and traditions. It would be naive to think that a shrinking, ageing, deracinated, fearful, self-apologetic, guilt-ridden White minority could ever persuade dominant Muslims to adopt Western customs they deem degenerate. And, once Turkey is in, what next? Syria? Iraq? Iran? These are all Turkey’s neighbors. If he has contemplated this prospect, and is still perplexed by the BNP’s lack of enthusiasm for it, Mr. Farndale’s conception of patriotism is very peculiar indeed.
In the second half of the article Mr. Farndale focuses on the BNP leader, Mr. Nick Griffin. Mr. Farndale is obsessed with racism: Does Mr. Griffin think he is racist? Is his party racist? If not racist, how does Mr. Griffin define racist? Could the “People Like You” slogan not be considered racist? Since there are a lot of racists in Britain, would it not make sense to admit that the BNP is a racist party? Why does the BNP, as a party whose purpose is to look after the interests of White Britons, not admit Blacks and put them in their posters?
Mr. Griffin’s answers are quoted at length, but his arguments are left unexplored. Why? Is not the task of a journalist to investigate and report? One imagines Mr. Farndale squirming as he listened, horrified, petrified, blown away by Mr. Griffin’s mind-blowing racism, heavily perspiring, trembling, barely able to write it all down, and dismissing Mr. Griffin’s replies out of hand as so perverse as to be unworthy of investigation. For want of an explanation, one also speculates that Mr. Farndale regards Mr. Griffin’s arguments as a deviously-formulated cognitive virus, designed to alter the human brain structure upon first contact, and instantly transform its victims into vicious racists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, and prison-proof Holocaust deniers. The public must be protected from this contagion!
Mr. Farndale self-righteously states that he thinks it a shame that there is a party that seeks to look after his interests as a native Briton, and that seeks to preserve the customs, traditions, and way of life that was defined his ancestors, many of whom gave their lives in order so that he may have a country where he could feel secure and at home. I think it is a shame that Mr. Farndale thinks this way, even if the BNP is an imperfect instrument: The BNP is currently the only pro-White party that has a prospect of scoring electoral victories (I would like it to be bigger and better and for there to be more); the mainstream parties are all actively working in dismantling Britain, vandalizing its culture, consputing on its traditions, and promoting policies that will lead to the physical destruction of its people — down to the genetic level, so they may never rise again.
At best, the political establishment thinks that by blending all humans together — by creating a standardized, homogenized, pasteurized human — they will create a utopia where there will be no war, because everyone will be exactly equal, neither rich nor poor, neither clever nor stupid, neither beautiful nor ugly, and, in sum, reduced to a generic civic unit of production and consumption, perfectly interchangeable and replaceable by any other human, and perfectly malleable and dull. At worst, they think “Pah! Who cares if I sell out? I won’t be here to see the result. I will take the money now and live in luxury while I can!”
Whether it is because of ideological commitments, the economic logic of party funding, their fear of being called names, combinations thereof, or all of the above, it makes no difference: The end result is the same.
Mr. Farndale has been spoiled rotten, but it would be unfair to single him out for denunciation and obloquy, for he is not atypical of Western men of our generation: He has enjoyed a lifetime of security and prosperity, without personal experience of what it took to obtain it; he has lived in one of the world’s richest and most preeminent nations, without personal experience of what it is like to be an ethnic minority under the heel of a hostile race with cultural and religious values very different from his own. To this effect, it would be interesting to see if Mr. Farndale lives in an implicit White community, or in a Muslim or Black ghetto. I’ll wager it’s the former.
My point is that it is easy to be a prissy multiculturalist from a position of security; to be a bleeding-heart egalitarian from a position of dominance; and to be a self-righteous Marxist from a position of comfort. Leftist historiography might serve to assuage the guilt of wealthy, socially-conscious idleness, but the fact remains that Britain was built not by self-apologizing, compassionate, comfortable, easy-going, liberal, and politically correct metrosexuals, but by intelligent, ambitious, disciplined, strong, brave, and formidable White men — men whose descendants come from Europe — who actively and openly strived for betterment and glory.
Someday the word “anti-Semite” will be studied as an example of distorted political discourse — as a signifier attached to somebody who advocates the reign of demonology. How does one dare critically talk about the extraordinary influence the Jews in the West without running the risk of social opprobrium?
We certainly cannot expect that Jewish intellectuals will think critically about Jewish influence. As a French author Hervé Ryssen writes, “internationally-known Jewish authors, haunted by the either real or surreal specter of anti-Semitism, consider it a sickness, which enables them to avoid any form of introspection.”
While it is a commonplace for White Europeans and Americans to critically talk in private about Arabs, Mexicans, Africans or, for that matter, deride their fellow White citizens, a critical comment about the influence of Jews, even if founded on empirical facts, is viewed as an insult to Jews. If a serious European and American scholar or a politician ventures into this minefield, his gesture is interpreted as a sign of somebody who writes his obituary.
Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West will sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both Jews and non-Jews. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for decades, but feigned conviviality between opposing groups cannot last forever. Mendacity carries the germ of civil war.
While many authors in the West sport staggering erudition in unabashedly challenging modern myths, the most sensitive point of reference of the twentieth century — Jewish influence — is carefully avoided. If the subject of Jews is ever brought up in a European or American public forum, it is in a laudatory fashion — a clear indication of the morbid desire of White ruling elites to curry favor with the Jews.
In the same vein, many intelligent White American and European racialists frequently decorate themselves with their “token Jews” in hopes of achieving some legitimacy in the mainstream media and seeking some camouflage in their opposition to non-European immigration or to various other myths of multicultural ideology. These individuals will likely be the first to declare themselves anti-Semites if the wind changes and critiques of Jewish influence become part of a new Zeitgeist.
The lack of open discussion about Jewish influence corroborates the thesis that Jews play a crucial role in opinion making in Western societies. True power shows itself by not being open to discussion. Hypothetically speaking, if Jews, by some miracle, were to play a marginal role in Europe or America — as they publicly claim they do, then logically, they would not object to being the subjects of critical discussion, or for that matter derision — just as it is legitimate to discuss the power of other groups. But Americans are far more likely to read books about the nefarious power of Christian conservatives or “white racism” than they are to hear about the far greater power of the organized Jewish community.
A common trait among many liberal Whites is intellectual servility — to look up to Jews as paragons of intelligence and moral rectitude. In the beginning of the 21st century there is no worse insult than qualifying a White politician or a White academic as an “anti-Semite.”
This intellectual servility of the Western political and academic class toward Jewry provides legitimacy to Jews in their endless search for a real or surreal anti-Jewish straw man. Organizations like the ADL trumpet even the most minor and deranged bit of anti-Semitism as heralding the next Holocaust.
The strange compound noun ‘anti-Semitism’ only gives Jews an additional alibi to project themselves as victims of prejudice. If anti-Semitism were non-existent it would have to be invented. The buzzword ‘anti-Semitism’ bestows upon the Jews a role of the moral and intellectual super-ego for White Europeans and Americans and by proxy for the entire world.
The frightened attitude of American and European intellectuals, who often extol the concept of “intellectual freedom,” is best seen in their schizoid attitude toward Jews. This was noted a long time ago by Wilmot Robertson, in his The Dispossessed Majority: “the pro-Semite has …made himself a mirror image of the anti-Semite.” The danger of this fatal embrace lies not with Jews, but with Whites. An American anti-Semite must appear in the eyes of Jews as a very bizarre species. On the one hand, he hates this alien Jew; yet on the other, he lugs behind himself the Levantine mindset of hatred toward outgroups that is not of European cultural origin.
A prominent Jewish-French politician and author, Jacques Attali, in his much acclaimed bookLes Juifs, le monde et l’argent, writes: “As Russian Jews invented socialism, and as Austrian Jews invented psychoanalysis, American Jews in the forefront, participated in the birth of American capitalism and in the Americanization of the entire world.” Because he is Jewish, Attali can make such comments without incurring the wrath of the Jewish activist organizations. If a White racialist author made a similar comment, he or she would be immediately shouted down as an “anti-Semite.”
That is why when a Jewish author talks openly and critically about Judaism — especially the strong Jewish role in social and political affairs in the postmodern West, his prose will elicit awe and respect. His words may be sometimes met with apprehension and irritation by his fellow Jews, as witnessed by Norman Finkelstein or to some extent Noam Chomsky, but his words will nevertheless find their place in the ears and eyes of mainstream audience.
The Necessity of ‘Kulturvolk’
A Jewish author, preferably of liberal or leftist pedigree, who tackles this greatest taboo of all times, will have a safe passage to media success. Such is the case with the liberal Jewish-Russian-American scholar, Yuri Slezkine, whose research does not reveal anything new regarding the Jewish role in the ex-Soviet Union and elsewhere. Yet Slezkine has the privilege of saying what is forbidden to the goyim.
Slezkine notes that America, unlike Europe, with its relatively strong tribal allegiances, knew only “vestigial establishment tribalism.” From its inception, America was far more propitious for Jews than Europe; it became a laboratory of ideas for diverse multicultural and academic experiments — be they of infra-, intra-European, or extra-European nature. ”What Jewish intellectuals could not attain in Europe, or later in the Soviet Union, was at hand in America where Jewish power, economic status and cultural influence have increased dramatically since 1960.”
It should not come as a surprise that similar views about Jews were elaborated much earlier by many German scholars affiliated with the Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage in National Socialist Germany, but who for obvious reasons are squarely denounced as proverbial Nazis and anti-Semites. The Institute, whose director was Eberhard Taubert , had a large number of scholars whose goal was the detailed anthropological, political and psychological research of the Jewish question. Taubert, after WWII, was not purged but worked for a while for US intelligence. In passing, it is worth noting that unlike the English and the French language, the rich German language does not have a single vulgar or slang word for the word “the Jew” (“Jude”).
Many Jewish scholars are aware of the schizoid White European mentality. AsShmuel Trigano noted, while setting itself up as “new Israel,” the West recognized in Judaism a factual, if not a juridical jurisdiction over itself. And this boils down to saying that the West has become Jewish to the extent that for centuries it kept forbidding to Jews their own identity. It follows from this that the strange verbal construct “Judeo-Christianity” is an elusive oxymoron; it imprisons the West, which by its own act of submission accepts a different mindset — which is not its own.
One could argue that the West is subconsciously anti-Semitic to the extent that it has always yearned — be it in a theological or ideological fashion — to become Jewish. The thesis can be put forward that the West will cease to be obsessed with Jews and anti-Semitism once it leaves this neurosis, once it returns to its own local European traditions, and by stopping to be what it is not and allowing the “Other” to continue what he is.
What has been missing in the West, and particularly in America over the last 50 years is a strong sense of cultural identity. The German word Kulturvolk, stands for a rooted cultural and national community (and not just the adherence to White race), and it is a prerequisite for a sound White identity. In contrast to Germans, Russians, French, etc., the weak cultural identity among White elites in America was a major flaw among American nationalists, racialists and conservatives who, while being aware of Jewish influence, were unable to muster up cultural energy to counter it. However, with rapid racial changes in America there are signs that the common cultural identity among Whites in America is on the rise.
The feigned fraternity between the postmodern Euro-American “shabbos goyim” and American Jews is veiled in mendacity and mutual make-belief mimicry which can be spotted in the Western political establishment and the media at all times. It is too grotesque to last forever. Admittedly, it only gives rise to proverbial Jewish hubris which will continue to grow as long as it receives servile fodder from self-censored European academics and politicians.
The arrest of petty crooks over a plan to target Jews has put the use of sting operations under fire
Tony Allen-Mills, New York
ON the steps of New York city hall on Friday, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor, praised the police officers and federal agents who helped disrupt an apparent terrorist plot to blow up a synagogue and shoot down military aircraft.
The mayor was flanked by more than 100 homeland security and counter-terrorist specialists, all of whom had a hand in an elaborate sting that netted four alleged Muslim extremists. Their plan, according to FBI agents, was to detonate a “fireball that would make the country gasp”.
The operation was acclaimed by New York officials for its success in averting what David Paterson, the state governor, described as “a heinous crime”.
Yet not every New Yorker was impressed by the latest in a long line of purported anti-terrorist triumphs that have supposedly averted tragedy in New York, Chicago, Toronto and several other North American cities since September 11, 2001.
“This whole operation was a foolish waste of time and money,” claimed Terence Kindlon, a defence lawyer who represented the last terror suspect to be tried in New York state. “It is almost as if the FBI cooked up the plot and found four idiots to install as defendants.”
Kindlon’s complaints were echoed by other legal experts who have repeatedly questioned the FBI’s reliance on undercover informants – known as confidential witnesses (CWs) – who lure gullible radicals into far-fetched plots that are then foiled by the agents monitoring them.
The last such plot purportedly involved an alleged attempt to blow up a fuel pipeline at John F Kennedy airport in New York in 2007; the defendants are awaiting trial in a case that depends heavily on evidence from an undercover CW.
“One question [about the synagogue case] that has to be answered is: did the informant go in and enlist people who were otherwise not considering trouble ?” said Kevin Luibrand, who represented a Muslim businessman caught up in another FBI sting three years ago. “Did the government induce someone to commit a crime?”
The other question that US security experts were debating was how much had been achieved by assigning more than 100 agents to a year-long investigation of three petty criminals and a mentally ill Haitian immigrant, none of whom had any connection with any known terrorist group. “They were all unsophisticated dimwits,” said Kindlon.
Prosecutors alleged that James Cromitie, a 44-year-old ex-convict who converted to Islam in prison, was the ringleader of a plot to bomb synagogues because, in his tape-recorded words, “I hate those f****** Jewish bastards”.
Cromitie, from Newburgh, 60 miles north of Manhattan, was said to have recruited three other Muslim converts – David Williams, 28, and Onta Williams (no relation), 32, both former Baptist American ex-convicts; and Laguerre Payen, 27, a Haitian former Catholic and paranoid schizophrenic.
This unlikely crew was said to have planned to use remotely detonated C4 explosives to bomb synagogues in the New York suburb of Riverdale; they then intended to drive north to a National Guard base near Newburgh to shoot down military aircraft with a Stinger missile supplied by a man they believed was working with Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based terrorist group.
That man is now understood to have been Shahed Hussain, a former New York state motel owner who became an FBI informant in 2002 to avoid deportation to Pakistan after being arrested on fraud charges. Hussain appears to have met Cromitie at a Newburgh mosque where the plot to bomb Jewish targets was hatched.
With Hussain’s help, the FBI was able to monitor every move made by Cromitie and the others. Hussain also provided the group with bogus C4 explosive and a fake Stinger missile and launcher supplied by the FBI. When the conspirators planted their dud bombs outside two Jewish targets on Wednesday night, the FBI was watching. The area was smothered with heavily armed Swat teams, the would-be bombers’ exit was blocked and agents hauled them away in handcuffs.
“Did they really need all those men in ninja suits with M16 rifles to arrest four idiots?” wondered Kindlon, a former marine sergeant whose main concern is that real terrorists may be plotting undisturbed while domestic US agencies focus on fantasists. “Somewhere, someone in Al-Qaeda must be laughing.”
Concern about the FBI’s tactics heightened after Salahuddin Mustafa Muhammad, imam at the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque in Newburgh, revealed that when Hussain first came to the mosque and started talking about jihad (holy war) – apparently to identify radical elements for his FBI handlers – several members immediately concluded that he must be a government agent.
The FBI is known to have infiltrated mosques, and many anti-terrorist experts believe a mosque is the last place a serious Islamic terrorist would plot an attack. “Anyone with any smarts knew to stay away from [Hussain],” said Muhammad. Yet nobody will accuse Cromitie and his cohorts of being smart.
Following up on Jared Taylor’s article, the Ricci reverse discrimination lawsuit now before the Supreme Court is not one of those “hard cases” about which law students are warned. There is nothing anomalous about the discrimination against the New Haven firemen who had their top scores in the 2003 civil service exam thrown out by the city because no blacks scored high enough to get promotions. Employment decisions being rigged to prevent “disparate impact” on “protected minorities” is just business as usual in America since the 1970s.
Instead, what’s unusual is that we’re even hearing about the victimization of these unprotected majorities.
I suspect that’s largely because Frank Ricci and his friends are firemen. Fire fighters show up more than any other profession in prominent reverse discrimination suits, perhaps because they enjoy civil service protection, unions, and, most of all, public admiration.
In a culture that increasingly holds blue-collar workers in contempt, firemen are the exception to the rule. They risk their lives for you, and they don’t give you speeding tickets. As the cops in Joseph Wambaugh’s LAPD novels are always telling each other: If you really wanted people to like you, you should have been a fireman.
It’s worth exploring some of the more subtle game theory reasons why there is so little public outcry against discrimination against white males other than fire fighters. Why is Ricci close to being the exception that proves the rule?
First, affirmative action targets marginal white males.
For example, although white guys who are already firemen have a fighting chance of staving off unfair treatment in promotions, white guys who just want to become firemen are discriminated against in hiring with impunity. For example, a couple of years ago, the Bush Administration sued the New York fire department, which lost 343 men on 9/11, for discrimination because its entrance exam had a one standard deviation gap in its passing rate between whites and blacks, the same cognitive racial gap seen more or les everywhere.
The message the Bush Administration’s lawsuit was implicitly sending the FDNY was: “Hire more minorities and fewer whites. We don’t care how you do it. Just do it.”
Cheating an already employed white fireman out of a promotion is dicey because he doesn’t go away. He’s still a fireman. So he hangs around, he complains, he organizes other white firemen to complain to their aldermen about why the politicians aren’t releasing the results, maybe he talks his sister-in-law’s cousin who is a file clerk in Personnel into Xeroxing the secret results of the test and leak it to him. And then he hires a lawyer.
In contrast, cheating some random white guy off the street out of his lifelong dream of being a fireman is a piece of cake: “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.” What can this marginal man do about his suspicions? Not much. He’s not connected.
Moreover, announcing that you are a victim of affirmative action is to admit you are marginal, that you would have only barely made the cut anyway. How uncool is that?
Similarly, affirmative action, by definition, doesn’t impact those who made the cut. Consider Harvard students. While some freshmen may enter Harvard sore that affirmative action might have cost high school friends admission to Harvard, soon they have lots of swell new friends, who, unsurprisingly, are all Harvard students, unlike those losers they used to hang around with in high school who didn’t have what it takes to get into Harvard.
Hence, you don’t see a lot of solidarity in opposing affirmative action.
Moreover, as you go up the pyramid of power, quotas becomes less prevalent, as the elite decide to finally draw the line so that affirmative action least inconveniences them.
Reflect upon the career of the First Lady. Michelle Obama attended Whitney Young H.S., the most selective Chicago public high school, where blacks enjoyed a quota of 40 percent of admissions. Then she was off to Princeton and Harvard Law School. At each institution, she felt that white people were making fun of her because her test scores weren’t all that great. Still, like a lot of mediocre black law students, she wound up with a high-paying job at a prestigious law firm.
The New York Times reported on UCLA law professor Richard Sander’s study of affirmative action in legal hiring:
But most black associates were hired due to racial preferences. According to the New York Times, “Black students, who make up 1 to 2 percent of students with high grades (meaning a grade point average in the top half of the class) make up 8 percent of corporate law firm hires, Professor Sander found. ‘Blacks are far more likely to be working at large firms than are other new lawyers with similar credentials,’ he said.”
Then, however, colorblind reality intruded. Mrs. Obama apparently didn’t pass the rather easy Illinois bar exam on her first opportunity. Soon, she gave up her law license and took a less cognitively taxing job working for Mayor Daley as a political fixer.
Think about it from Mrs. Obama’s point of view. She’d been scraping by on affirmative action for years, but quotas mostly evaporate when it comes to making partner. The law firm’s partners can put up with employing subpar blacks as associates for a few years to stay out of trouble with the government, but they take the partnership hurdle seriously. The New York Times said: “But black lawyers, the study found, are about one-fourth as likely to make partner as white lawyers from the same entering class of associates.”
So, why kill herself in the likely hopeless task of making partner when she can go into Chicago politics, where she’ll be smarter than the average ward heeler? (As an example of the kind of mental firepower it takes to succeed in Cook County politics, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich told a high school student named Mihan Lee, “I had an 18 on my ACT score. I’m told that’s kind of in the middle, maybe just below. [It’s around the 33rd percentile.] If I can be governor of Illinois, Mihan, you can be president of the United States.”)
So, the elites are less plagued by inept colleagues promoted due to racial preferences than their underlings are. Why, then, get annoyed by something that won’t much bother you personally?
Finally, the notion of white solidarity or white pride runs into the fundamental problem that whites mostly compete with each other for the best jobs. Competing with minorities is seen as evidence that you aren’t very far up the ladder.
Consider the three Cs: Creativity, Competence, and Charisma.
On the whole, whites tend to perform fairly well in terms of creativity, competence, and charisma, and thus tend to end up in the coolest jobs. In contrast, blacks are strongest at charisma and weakest at competence, while East Asians are the opposite. Mexican-Americans tend to be low in charisma and creativity (the proportion of famous Americans who are of Mexican descent is minimal), while perhaps moderate in competence.
Screenwriting is an example of a job that demands some high quantities of each category. Scripting movies is not the highest paid, most influential, most fun, or most desirable job in the country, but it comes close enough on all those dimensions to attract a huge number of would-be entrants.
Who wind up the screenwriters of Hollywood films? Although minorities buy a large fraction of movie tickets each weekend, 94 percent of employed screenwriters in 2004 were white.
Screenwriting is one of those jobs where, for a variety of reasons, affirmative action doesn’t much apply. (In a more rational world, the reverse would be true: we’d have racial quotas for screenwriters but not for fire captains. After all, whom do you rely upon to save your loved ones from flaming deaths? In a more sensible America, Frank Ricci would have his promotion but Akiva Goldsman would have gotten bumped off “Angels & Demons for a handicapped Hispanic lesbian.)
Likewise, over 90 percent of the staff at the major New York magazines are white. (Heck, only two of the nine staffers have Spanish surnames at the Pew Hispanic Center.)
So, you don’t see a lot of Hollywood movies or glossy magazine articles about whites victimized by racial preferences. This just isn’t a problem they have to deal with.
Thus, promoting white solidarity sounds almost as implausible to white people trying to claw their way to the top as promoting Vertebrate Pride would seem: Sure, us vertebrates are definitely the coolest subphylum, but it’s kind of hard to get worked up over how all us vertebrates should stick together when the competition is just a bunch of invertebrates.
Thanks to a group of disgruntled firemen, the question of what it means to be white is back in the news. By late June, the Supreme Court will decide whether the city of New Haven, Connecticut was right to throw out the results of a promotions test for lieutenant and captain only because the top scorers were white. The city badly wanted blacks, so it has left the jobs unfilled rather than promote any more undesirable white men. The city argues that since the scores of every test-taker—black, white, and Hispanic—were all thrown out, there can have been no discrimination.
That argument reminds me of the one Bob Jones University made when the Supreme Court lifted its tax-exempt status in 1983. Bob Jones was letting in students of all races but banned interracial dating on Biblical grounds. It said this could hardly be discrimination, since the ban applied to all races, who were equally benefitted (or inconvenienced, depending on your point of view). Somehow, the justices did not go along, though they failed to explain what was wrong with an argument that, for a private religious college, seems pretty close to airtight. We shall see whether the court buys the argument that since New Haven threw out the scores of the black losers as well as the white winners there was no discrimination.
There is nothing new about what happened to these firemen. Ever since the 1970s, whites have been the only people you can discriminate against legally and openly—and you can claim to be fighting discrimination when you do it. But it may be that after 30 years of this, even the white worm has begun to turn. In a letter about the firemen that the New York Times published on April 22, someone named Audrey Abramov seems to have stumbled onto the view that “it appears that being white not only is no longer an advantage, but is now a liability.”
The Times should know better than that. It has long agreed with black columnist William Raspberry, who used to say that “it’s always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men,” and that is exactly what the New Haven firemen are doing, even though they brought one Hispanic into the suit for protective coloring. Another black columnist, Shelby Steele, has described accurately the kind of ideological foreclosure that has informed racial discourse in America since the ‘60s: “[B]eyond an identity that apologizes for white supremacy, absolutely no white identity is permissible. In fact, if there is a white racial identity today it would have to be white guilt—a shared, even unifying, lack of racial moral authority.”
White men can organize after all, but only to apologize. Fortunately for them, they love to apologize. Only since 2008, the state legislatures of Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida all officially apologized for slavery. Colorado never had slavery so it apologized to Indians instead.
Australia has apologized to the Abos, the American Medical Association apologized to black doctors, the Baptist Church apologized to black Christians, Canada is in a perpetual state of apology to “first peoples,” and when Mayor Ken Livingstone apologized in 2007 for London’s role in the slave trade, he was so excited he broke down in tears. By sticking up for their rights as white people, the New Haven boys are breaking the rules.
Of course, it’s always good to know what the rules are, and in 2005, a fellow named Justin Moritz discovered one. He applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a trademark on the words “White Pride Country Wide.” The USPTO turned him down, say that “the ‘white pride’ element of the proposed mark is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.” Mr. Moritz reports that the USPTO had already trademarked “Black Power” and “Black Supremacy,” and that the agency finds nothing scandalous in pride so long as it isn’t white. These and a host of other “prides” are all trademarked: “African Pride,” “Native Pride!” “Asian Pride,” “Black Pride,” “Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride,” “Orgullo Hispano” (Hispanic Pride), “Mexican Pride,” and “African Man Pride.”
Whatever firemen may think, the important people in this country agree with the USPTO. The California Supreme Court is about to take up the case of Proposition 209, the ballot initiative passed in 1996 that bans state discrimination in contracting or college admissions. California has been squirming its way around the ban ever since, and former governor and current state attorney general Jerry Brown has filed a brief asking the court to dump the ban once and for all. He has the official line down pat:
A ban on discrimination fosters discrimination because it is discrimination against non-whites not to discriminate in their favor.
So what’s a (white) boy to do? There is an honorable tradition in the history of hopeless causes: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Just wait a few decades and whites will be a minority, too, and can all jump on the affirmative-action band wagon. Except it may not work out that way. Whites are already a minority in California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, and there is no sign it does them any good. Whites are really a minority in Detroit, but they are somehow not flocking to the city to enjoy the benefits.
The real solution may have to wait another generation or two after which, if some who call themselves conservatives have their way, there will have been so much miscegenation there will be no more white people left to worry about. “My great wish,” says conservative pundit Michael Barone, “is that 50 years from now we will be so mixed there will be no more racial categories.” “It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another color and if, eventually, we were all one color,” writes Morton Kondracke in The New Republic. Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute says miscegenation may be “the best hope for the future of American race relations.” Ben Wattenberg says that once we are all “bland and blended . . . we will fulfill our difficult destiny as the first universal nation.” Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic writes that “miscegenation has always been the ultimate solution to America’s racial divisions.”
Europeans want the same thing. Ségolène Royale was the Socialist candidate in the French presidential elections in 2007. “Miscegenation is an opportunity for France,” she said, adding that as president she would encourage immigration and would be “president of a France that is mixed-race and proud of it.” Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative who beat her, spoke fondly of “a France that understands that creation comes from mixing, from openness, and from coming together—I’m not afraid of the word—from miscegenation.” Jozef Ritzen, Dutch Minister of Education, Culture, and Science, explained that “this is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. . . . Apparently we are happy with this development.”
If those New Haven firemen got a raw deal, I guess their parents just married the wrong people.