Recent News

Los Angeles is an overpopulated Third World wasteland, where swelling masses of non-whites scramble through the ruins of a once-great city. The rich and powerful live figuratively and literally above the ruins, experiencing luxuries and pleasures that most Angelenos can only dream of.

Also Matt Damon stars in a new movie set there. The only difference is that, in his futuristic version, the rich live in space.

Elysium is in its own way a masterpiece. It’s a dystopian morality play oblivious to its own absurdity, earnest to the point of kitsch, equally self-righteous and sentimental. In the world of the future, the middle class is a thing of the past, and so, apparently, is irony.

Yet despite it all, Damon and writer-director Neill Blomkamp give us something timeless. They have achieved artistic immortality in capturing the premises, the delusions, and the peculiarly poisonous moral idealism behind the ideology we call “Open Borders.” Elysium succeeds because it shows us what it is to believe that “citizenship” itself is the root cause of oppression.

Ironically, Elysium inadvertently concedes that today's “nativists” are right. The futuristic Los Angeles is a decrepit, overcrowded ruin. The English conversations of the main characters are simply for the American audience—all the casual encounters in the film are in Spanish. Matt Damon's character, “Max,” is the fulfillment of VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow's projected but unwritten concluding Alien Nation chapter about the last white family in Los Angeles, except that “Max” was raised by (Spanish-speaking) nuns.

At no point throughout the course of the film do we see an American flag. While there is the occasional vague reference to “the government,” there is no sense of American national identity, culture, or civic unity. There are simply the exploitative rich (who have literally abandoned the planet for the eponymous space-based refuge) and the resentful Third World masses.

In contrast, “Elysium” itself seems to have a semblance of identity and culture. This orbital refuge for the rich is almost entirely white, except for a few token Asians and a weak and cowardly Indian “President Patel” (Farhan Tahir). The real power in Elysium: Defense Secretary “Jessica Delacourt” (Jodie Foster in a comically bad performance). Foster gleefully veers into outright camp, affecting what can only be called a “supervillain” accent. We see her speaking French with the attractive “citizens”

America’s asylum system has transformed from a way to help refugees into an entire alternative immigration system. Even America’s de facto Open Borders policy is not good enough for those who want to dispossess the American people. Instead, Congress has now created the “right” to asylum for any victim of a crime anywhere in the world.

Three recent Main Stream Media stories highlight the “asylum” farce.

Until recently, crime victims who were in this country illegally could only stay until they were no longer needed to give testimony in court. However, our rulers are now using the mere existence of crime—any crime—to keep migrants in the country permanently, as this first story illustrates:

Dyah Widyati is a rape victim. As a result, she also has become the victim of an overloaded and backlogged visa system created to help immigrants who are victims of crimes.

Immigrants such as Widyati who are applying for the humanitarian U visas created by the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act have to wait a year or more for their visas to be approved. During that time, they are in a no-status limbo.

They are without authorization to work or attend college. They can't leave the country without jeopardizing their right to return. They don't qualify for any benefits to help them get through a lengthy waiting time without paychecks.

Immigrants Face Long Delays For Visas Designed To Help Crime Victims, by Nancy Lofholm, Denver Post July 15, 2013

Rape, of course, is a horrible crime. But Widyati’s immigration status—she has overstayed her visa—had nothing to do with her rape. Her illegal status neither endangered pending testimony nor enabled threats against her from the perpetrator. In fact, her rapist is unlikely to ever be caught, much less prosecuted.

...Widyati, who came to the United States from Southeast Asia legally in 2009 on a student visa and currently lives in Denver.

Widyati, 32, was living near Baltimore and working on her master's degree in women's studies when a stranger entered her apartment and raped her.

The victims' program Widyati went to for counseling persuaded her to apply for the U visa. It would keep her in the country to help with prosecution if the perpetrator were caught. Widyati's attacker has not been found.

Before the creation of what the Denver Post calls the "humanitarian U Visa", crime victims and witnesses who were not lawful residents were either issued a visitor's visa or paroled into the United States temporarily for the period necessary to testify. Once the testimony was completed, there was no need for the victim or witness, and they could return home. There was, in fact, no problem to solve.

But Congress and the radical Leftist and ethnic lobbies created one. They wanted to bring more immigrants to the United States by any means necessary. Giving green cards to aliens, especially

I can’t say I’m a very keen fan of the Parade mini-magazine that comes with my Sunday New York Post. My wife pulls it out to read over her breakfast while I go directly to op-ed articles in the main newspaper—thumb-sucking pieces about the collapse of Detroit or the prospects for Syria.

Not that I mind Parade at all. On balance I’ll allow it’s a Good Thing. For those like Mrs. Derbyshire who take it at face value, it offers generally sound advice on matters like health, parenting, and household finances, in among harmless celebrity gossip, nostalgia pieces for the older readers, and uplifting stories about citizens who have triumphed over adversity.

For those of us with a more coldly sociological eye, Parade is a window into the interests and concerns of those sensible tens of millions of Americans who, like the great Warren G. Harding (according to historian Paul Johnson), do not believe that politics are “very important or that people should get excited about them or allow them to penetrate too far into their everyday lives.”

So no, I don’t mind Parade; it’s just that its content doesn’t usually interest me much.

But last week’s issue was an exception. The cover showed super-celebrity Oprah Winfrey and movie actor Forest Whitaker, with a short caption telling me that these two are starring in a film about a White House butler during the Civil Rights era.

This was interesting to me because, during my 1980s campaign to Americanize myself, one of the books I read and enjoyed was Forty-Two Years in the White House, the 1934 memoir by White House usher Ike Hoover.

 Hoover had served under all the Presidents from Benjamin Harrison (“Very seldom did he work after lunch”) to FDR, about whom Hoover was diplomatically silent. He is an invaluable source on such things as the smoking habits of the Presidents and First Ladies: McKinley the most intense smoker (cigars only), Mrs. Coolidge the only First Lady who smoked (“and she never did so in public”).

Thus primed, I was mildly curious about the Winfrey-Whitaker movie, which is scheduled for release August 16^th. So I read the Parade piece, in which the magazine interviews Winfrey, Whitaker, and director Lee Daniels. [Oprah Winfrey, Forest Whitaker Talk Lee Daniels' The Butler, Racism, and the N-word, By Katherine Heintzelman, July 31, 2013]

Titled The Butler, the movie is a fictionalized account of the career of another White House servant, Eugene Allen, who served in the White House from 1952 to 1986.

Whitaker is the Allen character (under a different name). Winfrey plays his wife, Gloria. “We took a lot of liberties with Gloria,” Winfrey tells Parade. Uh-oh. Robin Williams plays Eisenhower; Jane Fonda is Nancy Reagan. Uh-oh.

To judge from the Parade interview, The Butler is not an assemblage of amusing or instructive anecdotes about The Presidents in Ike Hoover style. Instead, it is black grievance porn.

So is the Parade interview itself.

Parade: Do you think that young people today know enough about the civil rights movement?

Winfrey: They don’t know diddly-squat. Diddly-squat!

Later:

Whitaker: The movie deals with the valuation of life, too. Like, whose life is valuable?...In terms of today, Fruitvale Station is playing, about the shooting of Oscar Grant in the Oakland BART station . . .

Winfrey: And the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Soon no doubt to be a major motion picture,

Why has the Main Stream Media suddenly been reporting that Americans favor Amnesty? The answer is simple—they’re using phony poll results to support their preferred policy.

Pollaganda, along with pseudo-scholarship and phony government statistics (also here), has become an important tool of the bipartisan and totalitarian system that is pushing open borders.

People used to criticize Bill Clinton for following poll results rather than leading. [Leaders As Followers, By Maureen Dowd, New York Times, January 12, 1997] Political consultants have since solved the problem of the invertebrate pol: Manufacture a fake public opinion that supports the politician they’re working for.

The basic form of pollaganda questions goes something like this:

• If I told you that there’s a mayonnaise that tastes every bit as delicious as Hellman’s, but has zero calories, would you buy it?

This is the sort of “polling” for which the Gang of Eight’s paymasters have paid millions of dollars, within a $1.5 billion lobbying campaign, in order to ram Amnesty (along with a logically-unrelated but donor-enriching increase in legal immigration) through Congress.

The result: “findings” about public opinion that insult the intelligence. Anyone who has followed the immigration debate knows that while a majority of Democrats support Amnesty, approximately 70 percent of the American public have long opposed Amnesty, with overwhelming opposition by Republican voters (as opposed to the traitors leading the Party). (See Poll Exposes Elite-Public Clash On Immigration, By Sam Francis, October 24, 2002.)

Recently, however, apparently believing that the American people will swallow anything, the Slave Power and its hired lobbyists began promoting frankly incredibly claims about public support for amnesty.

Last spring saw a flood of phony polls, national polls on April 25, and then on June 13, a Super Tuesday-style blowout of pro-amnesty poll results from allegedly 29 states: Idaho, Utah, Illinois, Maine, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Wyoming, Kansas, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. (The foregoing list, actually of 31 states, is from Politico, which did not explain the discrepancy.)

The pollsters behind the April 25 national push poll putsch asserted no fewer than 78 percent of Republicans supported amnesty. [Attitudes on immigration reform: an analysis of research, Research conducted by The Winston Group for: Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the National Immigration Forum Action Fund and the Partnership for a New American Economy, April 25, 2013.]

The June 13 state polls asserted that an average of just under 68 percent of all voters for all 29 states polled supported the Bill.

In other words, Resistance Is Futile!--only the lunatic fringe supports patriotic immigration reform!!

The April 25 national push poll was conducted by the Winston Group on behalf of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the National Immigration Forum Action Fund and the Partnership for a New American Economy. [Poll: Two-thirds of Republicans support immigration reform bill, Matt K. Lewis, Daily Caller, April 25, 2013]

The June 13 state push polls were conducted by Public Policy Polling and Harper Polling, on behalf of an evil/stupid coalition: Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch’s Partnership for a New American Economy; Republicans for Immigration Reform (Bush II Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez); and the Reconquista/racial socialist Alliance for Citizenship (La Raza, SEIU, etc.). [POLL: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Senate Immigration Reform Bill by Kirsten Gibson, Think Progress, June 13, 2013.]

A typical report:

In a polling memo set for release Thursday– and shared early with POLITICO—Democratic pollster Tom Jensen and Republican pollster Brock McCleary reveal

Despite the best laid plans of mice and John Boehner, the GOP Establishment cannot get any credit for trying to quietly sell an Amnesty pig in a border security poke. By standing strong against the Amnesty, Steve King has become the bull in the House Leadership’s china shop.  Not surprisingly, the Sunday New York Times took Congress’s leaving for what could be a pivotal August recess to beat the drum for Amnesty and to attack King in its editorial entitled Of Courage and Cantaloupes [August 3, 2013 ].

The NYT used the word “cantaloupe” because of Steve King’s celebrated comment that some illegal aliens are drug mules  with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling marijuana on their backs across the border—a controversy I’ve addressed here and here and here.  The NYT attacks King and praises the pro-illegal alien demonstrators who delivered cantaloupes to congressional Republicans with the note “This cantaloupe was picked by immigrants in California. You gave Steve King a vote. Give us a vote for citizenship.”

The NYT motive for bringing up Steve King and the cantaloupes is explicit:

If reason doesn’t work, maybe embarrassment will, unease at

James Fulford writes:  VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has (finally) updated the Kindle edition of his much-denounced 1995 best seller Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster with this Foreword, and improved formatting. We hope to provide a print version soon--the original publisher allowed it to slip out of print, as you will read below. The Foreword provides a new perspective, but the underlying facts remain the same, and remain relevant.

During this August recess, it's going to be important for people to communicate with their Congressmen, who will be spending the month visiting their constituents. As Mickey Kaus wrote in the Daily Caller, in August, "Silence=Amnesty."

If you don't want Amnesty, tell your Congressman! That way you too can avoid the "curses of those who come after."

By a curious coincidence, I began writing the Foreword to this Kindle edition of Alien Nation exactly seventeen years to the day since I wrote the Afterword to the original paperback edition—just before Christmas 1995.

(For the Kindle edition, we have moved the Afterword so that it follows directly after these remarks, and is in turn followed by what now seems like an amazing series of laudatory quotations from reviews by people who would now probably like to deny it.

(I never liked the title, by the way. I wanted to call the book Electing A New People after the now-famous Brecht poem. And I still think that would have been better. But imposing titles on authors seems to give commercial publishers their moment of creative thrill.)

The Alien Nation Afterword remains my most productive spasm in forty years in professional journalism: about 7,000 words in thirty straight hours.

I remember that, most of that day and into the night, I was looking out through my office window into an intense Connecticut Berkshire snowstorm, with a row of birds perched unmoving on a power line, fluffed up against the intense cold. I felt sorry for them and wondered how they could survive—not realizing, of course, that they would prove a pretty good symbol of the ordeal of immigration patriots in the coming years.

The blazing red dawn revealed a subzero winter wonderland—and a family of deer legally immigrated into our yard to claim asylum under a yew hedge.

The Afterword was so easy to write because I’d been composing answers to Alien Nation’s critics in my head throughout that intense year of book promotion. The Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that he wrote an entire book in his head while a prisoner in the Gulag. I now believe that this can be done.

Plus the writing was easy because, incredible though it may now seem, at the end of 1995 the cause of patriotic immigration reform seemed so obviously on the verge of victory. (We now call it “patriotic immigration reform” to distinguish immigration reduction and rationalization from the…other kind of reform, Amnesty plus a massive cheap-labor pig-out, whose advocates have hijacked the perfectly innocent term “immigration reform” in their typically disingenuous way).

Intellectually, the immigration enthusiasts were utterly routed, unable to respond to the sudden refutation of clichés upon which they had relied for years—except with personal abuse, which I viewed with contempt.

Nearly two decades later, this is still the case—but, alas, I have learned in the interim that mud really does stick.

Politically, everything had fallen into place. As I described in the Afterword, the Jordan Commission reported mid-year, recommending serious cutbacks in legal immigration—and President Bill Clinton endorsed its recommendations. The Republicans controlljed both the U.S. House and the Senate, so the passage of the Smith-Simpson bill, which embodied the Jordan recommendations, seemed inevitable. Even Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, more recently Sheldon Adelson’s catspaw in the 2012 presidential primaries, had sponsored a bipartisan task force on illegal immigration that, among other things, recommended ending birthright citizenship.

In addition, the 1996 Presidential Election was less than a year away. President Clinton was widely assumed to be mortally wounded after his party had lost control of Congress in 1994. And among the GOP contenders was Patrick J. Buchanan, in my opinion the outstanding political thinker of the era, who actually understood the immigration issue and had the courage and the ability to use it.

Well…it didn’t work out that way. To cut a distressing story short:

• In early 1996, Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary—but, assailed with a concatenated barrage of abuse unprecedented since the 1964 Goldwater campaign, was subsequently isolated and snuffed out.

As the columnist Lars-Erik Nelson, one of the small but honorable group of liberals who have recognized the reality of current immigration policy’s immiseration of the working class, said to me after we both appeared on the CSPAN morning show: “All the money in the world would have come down on [Buchanan]” had he won the subsequent Arizona primary (which he initially appeared to have done). Nelson’s premature death in 2000, like that of Barbara Jordan in 1996, was one of a long series of unpredictable misfortunes that have befallen the cause of patriotic immigration reform.

I must say, however, that I regard Buchanan’s

The economy added 162,000 jobs in July according to the BLS survey of business establishments. While below expectations, it was enough to bring the unemployment down to 7.4% —the lowest jobless rate since December 2008.