Show your support by purchasing VDARE.com merchandise. 
VDARE.com's Amazon connection has been restored! Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow 
Recent News
Memo From Middle America | Assimilation Fail: Why Isn’t Chicano Comedian George Lopez A Loyal American?
“…Sheriff Joe in Arizona, f--- you, you f---in’ puto. [Loud applause] How about that? F--- you, you fat motherf---er f--- you. I said I was gonna talk some sh-t, f--- you, Sheriff Joe, you f---in’ puto [Spanish-language profanity]. F--- you.” [Loud applause].—George Lopez, “It’s Not Me It’s You” HBO Special
This angry, and very unfunny rant, was recently uttered by Mexican-American comedian George Lopez to a large audience which applauded loudly. (Hear it here—language warning. ).
Why is George Lopez, a professional comedian, so angry at Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, fighting the illegal invasion of his county?
Lopez is a successful Mexican-American entertainer who has based his career on being Mexican-American. Born in 1961 in California, and eventually abandoned by both his parents, George was raised by his maternal grandmother who provides many of the anecdotes in his stand-up routine.
Besides his long career in stand-up comedy, Lopez has hosted a radio show, been an NFL commentator, acted on television and in movies. From 2002 to 2007 he was the producer, writer and star of the “George Lopez” sitcom, which was followed by hosting TV talk show Lopez Tonight, from 2009 to 2011. George Lopez has published his autobiography, Why You Crying? co-written by CBS’s Armen Keteyian and has a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame.
So George Lopez is a celebrity in today’s celebrity-crazed society. And he’s richer than most of us will ever be. And yet, like Eva Longoria and other prominent Mexican-American celebrities, there is something in George Lopez’s soul that doesn’t identify with, and even seems to resent, the historical American nation.
For example, unlike most Americans, George Lopez opposes Arizona’s SB 1070. Why is that?
If Lopez weren’t a Mexican-American, he wouldn’t even be famous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t his whole shtick based on his identity as a Mexican-American?
When the George Lopez sitcom was cancelled in 2007, Lopez made a racial case out of it, bellyaching that “TV just became really, really white again.” (According to DNA testing, George Lopez is 55% white, but of course he doesn’t identify as white). Complaining about another program entitled “Caveman”, Lopez reasoned that
So a...Chicano can't be on TV but a...caveman can?" "And a Chicano with an audience already? You know when you get in this that shows do not last forever, but this was an important show and to go unceremoniously like this hurts? [Lopez apparently can't stop swearing for ten minutes--The three dot ellipses are the LA TIMES’s for what they call “ colorful language that cannot be printed in a family newspaper”.]
”TV just got a lot 'whiter,' says a canceled George Lopez LA Times, May 14th, 2007
Well, I’ve never had my own sitcom, nor have most white Americans, yet Lopez had
The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words
Thumper the Rabbit's parents always taught him, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." If the left's self-appointed Omniscient Diviners of True Meaning have their way, conservatives in the public square won't be left with anything at all to say. Ever.
It's a treacherous business exercising your freedom of speech in the age of Obama. As a public service, I present to you: "The 2012 Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words." Decoder rings, activate!
National Review Wrong (Again) On Race And Welfare
After the purging of John Derbyshire earlier this year, it is increasingly clear that nobody at National Review knows or dares to say anything about race. But much worse, they can’t be bothered to look up the basic facts about things such as demographics and welfare. It almost seems as if the political correctness that led to the firing of Derbyshire has blinded them to plain, numerical facts.
Last month, NR’s Jim Geraghty wrote an article on the presidential race which wrongly put the percentage of whites in the United States at 72 percent (it is 63.7 percent). [1980 vs. 2012, July 25, 2012]
“So if the racial demographic change amounts to only a small shift in favor of the Democrats, what societal trend has helped them?” asked Geraghty. His ignorance about the facts of demography cause him to dismiss the demographic revolution as merely a “small shift” in favor of the Democrats, when it is really the main cause of Republican decline.
For example, John McCain’s shares of the respective races’ votes in 2008 would have carried him to victory if the races themselves had been present in the U.S. population in the same proportions as they were in 1976. McCain, in other words, ran better than Gerald Ford. But he lost because our political class has been busy electing a new people.
Yesterday’s feature story on NRO is titled Who Racializes Welfare Reform? (August 29, 2012) It is credited to “The Editors,” so it is hard to know who exactly wrote the piece.
The gist of the article: Democrats are playing the race card against Republicans for criticizing President Obama’s gutting of welfare reform. In particular, “The Editors” call out MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for hectoring RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:
Mr. Matthews’s accusations were, as is his style, presented without evidence or argument, and indeed without anything that might even charitably be called intellectual content. That he immediately connects welfare in his mind with race is of course telling: The majority of American welfare recipients are white. Blacks are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls, it is true. That is not the only place in which black Americans are overrepresented: As conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for a couple of years now, the black unemployment rate is a national scandal — reason enough to fire Barack Obama on its own. But the majority of unemployed people, like the majority of welfare recipients — and the majority of the country, of course — are white. … [Emphases added]
But, ironically, the NR editors are just as guilty as Matthews in presenting arguments without evidence or intellectual content. As I wrote on VDARE.com last year,
The most recent racial breakdown of welfare recipients is from 2009. Officially, welfare is now called
John Derbyshire On Our Unwanted (But Uncriticizable) Underclasses
Having recently received an invitation to speak in Baltimore, and having read Eugene Gant's article on VDARE.com last week, I thought I'd see what else I could find on the state of affairs in that noble city.
Courtesy of Paul Kersey at the Stuff Black People Don't Like website, I picked up this video report by, of all people, Al Jazeera.
Fault Lines : Baltimore: Anatomy of an American City
Readers tell me that links to video clips are a nuisance. "Who's got time to watch a video clip?" they grumble. I guess that particularly applies to the Al Jazeera report, which runs 24 minutes 12 seconds. Okay, okay, here's a summary:
The video is a standard-format MSM "insight" piece—think 60 Minutes. Our reporter, who is white British, visits the mean streets of Baltimore. He talks to street-level drug dealers. He rides with a cop in a patrol car. He visits jails and meets prisoners.
All these people—including the cop—are black.
In among all that, we get short segments from a city council meeting on crime, and extracts from interviews with non-criminal talking heads.
One of the talking heads is Ed Burns, a former Baltimore police detective and schoolteacher who co-wrote the TV series The Wire. I watch almost no TV and have never seen The Wire, though I've heard people speak well of it as "realistic."
Be that as it may, Burns comes across here as a we-are-all-guilty leftist. At one point (5m38s on the video) he actually says: "We're not dealing with the root causes." Later (23m21s) he tells us that: "This [i.e. the dire situation of Baltimore's black underclass] is a crime that we've committed."
Ed Burns is white, so presumably the "we" in that sentence is white Americans. Other possibilities: former police detectives, ex-schoolteachers, writers of TV series.
Another one of the talking heads is law professor Michelle Alexander [Email her] author of a recent book, The New Jim Crow, arguing that drug laws are just the latest way to keep the black man down.
As it happens, I have read that book. Much of it is balanced on a single pinhead: a shoddy 2009 report by the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch, a report that fails to address issues that quite naturally arise as one reads it—the issue, for example,
The Closing-Down of British Studies in the American Mind
America’s immigration-driven slide into Third World status affects all areas of life. Thus American higher education has jettisoned traditional areas of study in favor of trendy, multicultural topics. In particular, the closing-down of British Studies in History and English Departments fills a young academic like myself with woe. Within a generation, many college graduates will be largely ignorant of British civilization and its profound influence on (pre-1965) American society.
Chronicled by professional organization such as the North American Conference on British Studies, (NACBS) the decline of tenure-track positions since 1970 is staggering and frightening.[NACBS Report on the State and Future of British Studies in North America, November 18, 1999]
Currently, a hiring season will produce only a handful (5-10) tenure track jobs that hundreds of applicants will compete for. In the past two hiring seasons, Wake Forest University and Lake Forest College saw record-breaking numbers of applicants for the single positions they offered. I’m told by a contact at Princeton that last year’s hiring season produced only one tenure-track opening in Early Modern British History. Coupled with the fact that over seventy percent of faculty are now off the tenure track, a full-time assistant professorship is becoming as rare as the dodo.
Increasingly, the lottery-winning applicants who gain positions do so by professing to be comparative historians—in other words, they make themselves more attractive to hiring committees by showing they are specialists in the Empire (Africa, Asia, trendy non-white peoples).
Many state universities now only employ one or two British History specialists while boasting multiple instructors trained in the latest victim studies, (black, gay, women’s histories).
This decline over the past two generations constitutes a dramatic abandonment of traditional scholarship.
In Eisenhower’s America, it was routine to find
Steve Sailer On David Maraniss’s BARACK OBAMA: THE STORY—Boring, But Inadvertently Revealing
At first glance, Barack Obama: The Story appears to be a vast heap of random details obsessively piled up by veteran Washington Post reporter David Maraniss. Maraniss hit pay dirt with bestselling biographies of Bill Clinton
And, despite much pre-release publicity in WaPo, Maraniss’s book has laid an egg in the marketplace, selling only 1/7th as many copies as Edward Klein’s anti-Obama quickie The Amateur. Maraniss is not at all happy about the curious fact that Obama skeptics seem to like to read about Obama more than Obama supporters do. [What drives the Obama doubters and haters?, by David Maraniss, Washington Post, July 27, 2012].
But you have to sympathize with Obama fans who might have picked up this weighty tome in the bookstore, only to drop it and reel away on finding that its 641 pages merely see us through the 27-year-old heading off to Harvard Law School.
(In case you are wondering, Maraniss devotes pp. 536-546 to Obama’s chief triumph as a community organizer: helping to get some of the asbestos removed from a housing project. I must confess to having skimmed this section.)
The tedium of this doorstop biography raises three questions:
- Is Maraniss simply a dull writer?
His sales record suggests not.
- Did Maraniss intentionally make his portrayal boring to protect Obama’s re-election and his supporters’ tender feelings?
Possibly. Thus Maraniss interviewed hundreds of people (and got an Oval Office interview, in which Obama volunteered that he was a B+ student at Occidental and an A- student at Columbia). The one man Maraniss didn’t interview, however, is the single most unfailingly entertaining character in Obama’s life story: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
In contrast, Edward Klein got an interview with Wright. And from it he got two scoops:
a) Wright told Klein that Obama knew more about Islam than about Christianity when they met.
This doesn’t mean that Obama is a secret Muslim. I’ve never seen much evidence for any religious feeling in Obama at all. But Obama having an intellectual understanding of Islam makes sense because most of his friends in college were rich leftist Pakistanis.
b) Wright told Klein that Obama's friend Eric Whittaker offered him $150,000 to shut up.
That strikes me as reassuring. All else being equal, I would rather have a President who, when confronted with a problem, tries to take action rather than simply drifts.
The third question:
- Maybe Maraniss’s biography is boring because Obama himself, for all his suaveness, is
Last Hurrah of Nixon's 'New Majority'?
Looking back all the way to America's Civil War, there have been three dominant presidential coalitions.
The first was Abraham Lincoln's. With his war to restore the Union and his martyrdom, Lincoln inaugurated an era of Republican dominance that lasted more than seven decades and saw only two Democratic presidents: Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.
The second coalition was FDR's, where he and his vice president Harry Truman won five consecutive presidential elections. Only Gen. Eisenhower could break that streak.
The third was Richard Nixon's New Majority, cobbled together after his narrow 1968 victory, where he annexed the Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Christian conservatives of FDR's coalition to win 49 states in 1972. Ronald Reagan would follow up with 44- and 49-state landslides and see his vice president win 40 states in 1988.
That New Majority is now history. In the five elections since 1992, Republicans have won the popular vote once—in 2004. And while Mitt Romney is slightly ahead in polls today, reaching 270 electoral votes will be no easy task. The electoral map is becoming problematic.
According to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, the party has a 3-2-1 strategy. While holding all the states McCain won, the party must first
Bad News For Immigration Patriots: Cardinal Timothy Dolan's "Close Working Relationship" With Romney
An Act of God may have delayed the beginning Republican Convention in Tampa, but a Man of God will be at the closing—Cardinal Timothy Dolan (email him), head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to give the benediction on Thursday night, when Mitt Romney will accept the nomination.
Immigration patriots should be spooked.
Cardinal Dolan’s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, claims that the move is apolitical and the Cardinal “would be willing to accept a similar offer from the Democratic Party as well.” [Top U.S. Catholic cardinal will bless RNC—but not endorse, by Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today, August 23, 2012].
But both sides see the obvious political implications. The announcement prompted predictable elation from social conservatives—and corresponding complaints from liberal Catholics and secularists.
Thus longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie claimed that
Dolan’s presence really draws attention to the religious freedom argument against Obamacare…adds to the already strongly pro-life tenor of the convention and sends a signal that despite the advice of his establishment Republican consultants, with strongly pro-life Roman Catholic Paul Ryan as his running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney is prepared to embrace the pro-life elements of the conservative social agenda.
Does Cardinal Dolan’s presence at GOP convention signal Catholic trigger event?, Politico, August 24, 2011. (VDARE.com links added to quotes throughout)
Leftist Jesuit Michael O'Loughlin complained
Cardinal Dolan’s appearance in Tampa will damage the
Memo From Middle America| Doesn’t Puerto Rico’s Passionate Support For Its Olympic Team Tell Us Something?
The 2012 London Olympics have ended. I’m hoping that Steve Sailer is writing a big, comprehensive analysis. But meanwhile, look at this:
“It was the first time in Olympic history that Puerto Rico had a real chance at an Olympic medal in track and field….I was sweating. My heart was pounding out of my chest. I was hyperventilating. As Javier crossed the finish line in third place, I started to cry. I was trembling and, while I would have liked for him to place first in order to hear our beautiful [Puerto Rican] national anthem resonate in a packed arena, I was still proud. So proud I couldn’t stop crying. …And seeing my flag being raised during the award ceremony? Priceless….. If this is not Puerto Rico patriotism, I don’t know what it is.”
Thus wrote Maria Laborde, self-described “world citizen, Puerto Rican at heart, on her Latin Abroad website. [Puerto Rico patriotism: The U.S. territory’s dilemma, August 13, 2012] She was watching Puerto Rican Olympic runner Javier Culson win the Bronze Medal in the mens’ 400 meter hurdles.
Slight complication: Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. Puerto Ricans are legally U.S. citizens. And many people (including some Republicans, such as GOP presidential nominee-presumptive Mitt Romney) are pushing to make Puerto Rico our 51st state.
But Puerto Rico has fielded its own Olympic Team since 1948. It’s not the only non-independent entity that competes: so do three other U.S. dependencies, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands; British dependencies Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands; Aruba, politically part of the Netherlands; the Cook Islands, a New Zealand dependency; and Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China.
All ten teams were grandfathered in when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) changed the rules back in 1995 and decreed that henceforth a country
"What Will Come Of The Race War That Roils The Streets Of Baltimore?"
[See note for explanation of title.*]
[See also: Can Baltimore Fill Its Urban Barrios With Aliens To Save Its Bond Ratings? By Donald A. Collins]
“There’s going to be race war in this country some day,” my father told me 30 years ago. “I won’t live to see it,” he said, “But you and your children will.”
Little did this Menckenite reactionary, whelped on the streets of Baltimore, whose father sent him to the neighborhood bar with a nickel to fetch home a bottle a beer, know how right he was.
Just this May, nine decades after my father’s birth, conservative black economist Thomas Sowell, having observed black flash mobs and the like, wrote of a “censored race war,” as Creators Syndicate's headline on his column put it, that blacks are conducting against whites. Flash mobs. The knock-down game. Polar bear hunting. Walter Williams writes likewise:
The Fulford File | Michelle Obama And Anti-Sikh Violence—Does She Realize She’s Actually Denouncing Her Own People?
Last month, when an alleged white supremacist named Wade Michael Page murdered six people in a Sikh temple in Milwaukee, the Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com) had an “I told you so” moment—something it’s been looking for for a long time.
This has led to an outpouring rage from Attorney General Eric Holder. He called it an “act of terrorism” and a “hate crime“ and said that
“In the recent past, too many Sikhs have been targeted and victimized simply because of who they are, how they look and what they believe. That is wrong. It is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated…”
Holder Calls Sikh Temple Shooting ‘Act Of Terrorism’, Continues To Label Fort Hood Massacre As ‘Workplace Violence’, Fox Nation, August 10, 2012
Now we find that It has also led to a visit to the Sikh Temple by Michelle Obama.
- Michelle Obama Meets With Victims Of Sikh Temple Shooting, By Eyder Peralta, NPR, , August 23, 2012
- First lady meets Sikh shooting victims' families, By Dinesh Ramde, Associated Press,August 23, 2012
- Michelle Obama meets with Sikh shooting victims, families, By Annysa Johnson Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 23, 2012
Significantly, Michelle Obama did not visit Omar Thornton’s victims—Thornton was a black shooter in Connecticut who killed eight white men for being “racist.”
But if Sikhs are being attacked, who exactly is doing it? Neo-Nazis are actually very rare.
Could it be that some of the people attacking Sikhs
Immigration Cartoon Of The Day
This daily cartoon contributed to VDARE.com by Baloo. His site is HERE
GOP's Akin Panic A Result Of (Predictable, Predicted) Demographic Change
Whittaker Chambers said, “The great failing of American conservatives is they do not retrieve their wounded.”
He had it right, as Todd Akin can testify.
In an interview that aired last Sunday, Akin, the Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, was asked whether he opposed abortions for women who had been raped. Akin’s reply:
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. …
“But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
As no rape is “legitimate”; this was a colossal gaffe.
Yet anyone reading his statement knows what Akin meant. He was saying that in an actual rape—from what doctors have told him—the likelihood of pregnancy is rare. But if a pregnancy did occur, the punishment should be imposed on the rapist—not the unborn child.
This was the moral position of those extremists
Billy Payne, Augusta National And The End Of The All-Male Golf Club (Also Of Freedom Of Association)
A strange, anti-climactic ending to what once was the most talked about story in golf transpired on Monday: the “glass ceiling” at Augusta National, home of the golfing world’s most prestigious event, The Masters, was shattered when two women were finally admitted as members to the exclusive private golf club.
The eunuchs at ESPN erupted into euphoric ecstasy as a horrible reminder of gender discrimination was finally ended, with the announcement that female financier Darla Moore and Conservatism Inc.’s favorite black female minority Condoleezza Rice had accepted membership invitations.
Throughout the day, ESPN’s never-ending show Sports Center proudly boasted about the Iron Curtain keeping women, Title IX, and—ultimately—Progress out of Augusta National. Featured columnist Rick Reilly asserted that this “should have been done 40 years ago.”
Oddly, Reilly didn’t make this point in any of his Sports Illustrated columns (such as A Three Rings Master, April 21, 2003) during the 2002-2003 war on Augusta National that feminist Martha Burk and the New York Times waged together. At the time, he was dismissive of the whole feminist thing.
As Steve Sailer just noted, this garnered 40 (forty!) news stories, columns, or editorials from The Old Grey Lady denouncing the private club for bigotry, oppression, and persecution. [The New York Times' Augusta Blog, By Jack Shafer, Slate, Nov. 25, 2002,]
Perhaps it was the me-too “tweet” sent out by Senator John McCain—who told South Carolinians in 2000 he was in favor of the Confederate battle flag, only to apologize for the faux pas later—that epitomizes the entire Augusta National fight to remain exclusively male:
"Congratulations to Augusta Nat'l for joining the 21st century.”
The 21st century, McCain (or his tweet-staffer) apparently believes, will be a cultural Marxist nirvana in which petty bourgeois values like freedom of association will be not merely illegal but pathologized.
Earlier in the 21st century that the former chairman of Augusta National, Hootie Johnson, received a letter from Martha Burk inquiring about admitting women. Sports Illustrated reported his famous reply:
"We do not intend to become a trophy in their display case," Johnson wrote of Burk and the National Council of Women's Organizations. "There may well come a day when women will be invited to join our membership, but that timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet."
Master of his Universe, by Alan Shipnuk, April 7, 2003
But Hootie was replaced as chairman in 2006 by Billy Payne, formerly chief executive of the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG), the man who brought the 1996 Olympics to Atlanta. Ominously, the New York Times ran a flattering piece on Payne in 2007, introducing the new chairman of Augusta National as a southern gentleman who would have fit in nicely at the Piedmont Driving Club with long-time Coca-Cola President Robert Woodruff. Reading between the lines, you get the feeling that Payne was put in place to apply that bayonet and usher in the progressive 21st century:
How might Payne handle the membership question?
[St. Luke’s Presbyterian Church Minister Christopher A] Price, who continues to share church services with Payne, said he was not sure how the new chairman might address the membership issue.
“I’m looking forward to seeing that myself,” Price said. “There is an awful lot, the sex and r
