Recent News

The immigration patriot movement generates a sophisticated rationale about why the historic American nation should militantly oppose so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty/ Immigration Surge. Unfortunately, the Main Stream Media runs shrieking away from rational discussion of this important issue.

But the public can still break into the MSM through writing Letters to the Editor—and these days, the letters to the editor and the comments sections contain the only things worth reading in the Establishment media.

With the economy listing to port, citizens below decks growing restless, and Captain Obama seemingly deliberately seeking out icebergs, the American ship of state seems likely to sink at any moment. Luckily, at least some people are sounding the warnings.

The letters section of the February 5, 2014 Wall Street Journal is headlined with the timely words: "The GOP Should Be Wary of An Immigration 'Breakout'.” 

Reader Jonathan Rothenberg of New York City lays out some common sense principles that instantly cut through the thousands of words of corporate propaganda littering the Journal:  

Regarding your editorial "Immigration Breakout" (Jan. 30): American citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and handing it out en masse to illegal immigrants is simply indefensible. They do have a "path to citizenship" today and will continue to do so under a plan that provides legalization without a path to citizenship: the current legal process.

As faulty as the policy logic is, however, the political logic is worse. Leave aside the fact that immigration is unimportant to most voters. With ObamaCare

Senator Jeff Sessions (Numbers USA grade A+)

The Main Stream Media is missing the real story on the Republican Party’s suicidal push for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge.  The Party may be on the brink of a sweeping realignment—and the critical transformative figure is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

This realignment is likely because, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming battles over legalizing the tens of millions of illegal infiltrators in Occupied America, the Republican leadership has already failed.  Key Treason Lobby figures within the GOP are clearly feeling the heat.  Even if the disaster of an Amnesty/ Immigration Surge passes, the GOP base is well aware of the treachery of its own leadership and is looking for alternatives. 

Thus according to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller (whose days as a journalist within the Beltway Right are surely numbered), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor frantically changed the subject when pressed by CBS reporter Major Garrett “if the GOP plan would allow the 12 million illegal immigrants to get citizenship.”  Instead, Cantor began babbling about “job growth and the lack of job growth,” without making any connection between those subjects and the likely consequences of flooding the labor market with helots.  [GOP Leaders Hide Immigration Plans, February 3, 2014]

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan has attempted a bit of misdirection by claiming that that it is “clearly in doubt” that Congress can pass an immigration bill this year.  [Are immigration reformers talking down chances so opponents will drop guard?  By Byron York, Washington Examiner, February 3, 2014]. However, what is significant is that this tactic is openly being called out as possible misdirection.

The Republican leadership’s sudden cowardice has been triggered by the surprisingly stiff resistance of the GOP House Caucus to passing Amnesty.  According to Jonathon Strong of Breitbart.com, a closed door session of Republican Congresscritters revealed that 80% were opposed to moving on a bill this year.  Speaker John Boehner and Ryan were apparently both restrained in their rhetorical support for amnesty in this meeting, as ordinary Congressman neither trust Barack Obama to enforce security measures nor the leadership’s promises that an Amnesty/immigration Surge would be politically beneficial.  [Did Showdown Kill Boehner’s Immigration Dreams?” January 31, 2014] 

Hilariously, Ryan is even saying that for an immigration bill to go anywhere, it has to be based on “security first, no amnesty” and only “then we might be able to get somewhere.”  [U.S. immigration bill “in doubt” this year, Republican Ryan says, by Margaret Chadbourn, Reuters, February 2, 2014] (Mickey Kaus catches Ryan outright lying about this (“distorting and dissembling weren’t getting the job done, I guess”) on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos).

The conclusion – the Republican leadership isn’t composed of “leaders”

Forty years ago, a movie was released in theaters that late film critic Roger Ebert immediately knew represented something “scary.” [Review, January 1, 1974]

In contrast to Obama’s America, where Hollywood, television, and the Main Stream Media are working overtime to promote false consciousness about crime in America (just watch an episode of Law & Order or remember what the producer of COPS said about wanting to show only reversing the ratio of white and minority criminals (“I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes”)  this movie packed a powerful reminder: no matter how much incessant propaganda tries to make people believe a lie, one perfectly-packaged dose of truth is enough to make it all go away.

That movie: Death Wish. To celebrate the 40^th anniversary of its theatrical release, a special edition Blu Ray version was released today (February 4). [Purchase here and direct a commission to VDARE.com at no cost to you!] Never has the response of the Charles Bronson character (named, by an amazing coincidence, Paul Kersey) to the rape-murder of his wife and rape-mental ruin of his daughter looked better.

Based on a novel by Brian Garfield (interestingly, its protagonist was named Paul Benjamin and was Jewish), Death Wish spawned four sequels. But it was the compelling manner in which the original movie portrayed Bronson’s actions as justified that frightened Ebert. He said:

There's never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury—and executioner.

That's what's scary about the film. It's propaganda for private gun ownership and a call to vigilante justice. 

No doubt this was exactly why the great Murray Rothbard praised the movie so much:

Death Wish is a superb movie, the best hero-and-vengeance picture since Dirty Harry. Bronson, an architect whose young family has been destroyed by muggers, drops his namby-pamby left-liberalism, and begins to pack a gun, defending himself brilliantly and uncompromisingly against a series of muggers who infest New York City. Yet he never kills the innocent, or commits excesses. Naturally, even though he is only defending himself against assault, the police, who have failed to go after the muggers and who acknowledge the fall in the crime rate due to Bronson’s activities, devote their resources to pursuing him instead of the criminals who terrorize New York. It is a great and heroic picture, a picture demonstrating one man’s successful fight for justice.

As might be expected, Death Wish has been subjected to hysterical attacks by the left-liberal critics who acknowledge the power and technical qualities of the picture, which they proceed to denounce for its “fascist ideology” (self-defense by victims against crimes) and its “pornography of violence” (in a just cause).

Don’t miss Death Wish; it says more about the “urban problem” than a dozen “message” documentaries, and it helps bring back heroism to the movies.

August 1974 issue of The Libertarian Forum

One line of dialogue in Death Wish cuts to the heart of America’s crime dilemma. While Bronson’s character is at a dinner party in New York City, he overhears a conversation between two guests about his vigilante actions:

Man: I’ll tell you one thing: the guy’s a racist. You notice he
 kills more Blacks than Whites.

Woman: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Harry. More Blacks are muggers

The Daily Beast’s immigration enthusiast editor John P. Avlon is an idiot, but he just usefully expressed Main Stream Media conventional wisdom in a propaganda piece for the GOP House Leadership Leadership’s attempted Amnesty/ Immigration Surge sellout when he smeared its opponents: “[T]he increasingly isolated conservative populist base is pre-occupied with resisting cultural change…[the Leadership]—and the country—cannot be held hostage by the impractical ideological fervor of 50 or so House radicals…” [Will Immigration Reform Be John Boehner’s Legacy, February 2, 2014. Emphases added.]

Another example: with the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, the mindless description “far-right” has been tossed with more recklessness than usual. Thus Reuters and the Guardian, evidently believe that Le Pen is “far-right” because she is “anti-immigrant” (and anti-European Union: France's National Front readies mass showing for local vote, by Mark John, January 9, 2014; French polls show surge in support for far-right National Front, by Kim Willsher, October 10, 2013]

BUT THE TRUTH IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Being what the MSM calls “far-right” and “anti-immigrant” puts you in the mainstream of sensible Western popular opinion.

Of course, to be what the MSM calls “anti-immigrant” simply means that you favor some form of restriction or control on immigration into your country.

Whatever—if restricting or controlling immigration is “far-right,” then being “anti-immigrant” is undeniably a mainstream opinion. In a massive Pew Research poll of 47 countries around the world, majorities in 45 of those countries favored further restricting or controlling immigration. 

Here is how the Pew Center described the results of its poll:

In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed

There’s a significant and sinister back story to the Cheerios Superbowl  First Quarter ad [YouTube] featuring/ flaunting a biracial family that got an MSNBC staffer fired—allegedly—for gloating via Twitter that “the right wing will hate it.” [Cheerios Brings Back Interracial Family For Its First Ever Super Bowl Ad, by Aaron Taube, Business Insider, January 28, 2014.]

Ad agency Saatchi& Saatchi (email CEO Kevin Roberts) knew its masterpiece would get mindless praise in the Main Stream Media and from Politically Correct lumpen Leftists. (Thus Business Insider reader Vall announced: “Anti-white is a code word for pro-American.”)

But S&S took no chances, disengaging the YouTube “Down” vote option and engaging in massive censorship so that over 98 percent of the comments are supportive and criticisms swathed in ambiguous language. [An Interracial Cheerios Super Bowl Ad, Minus YouTube's Hateful Comments, By Joshua Brustein, January 31, 2014].

I tried to post three comments: they were all blocked. Two appear on my PC and at Google+, but with no votes or comments. When I checked using my son’s PC, nothing showed up. (The software that lets someone see something he has posted, but which has actually been blocked—called “ghosted comments” —has been around for 10 or more years.)

The surviving commenters’ stupidity was as appalling as their self-congratulatory, anti-white politics. The majority of the 2,872 comments that I found early Sunday morning did not even understand that the family in the commercial was fictional.

VDARE.com has repeatedly noted that, as John Derbyshire put it, If There Is Hope, It Lies In The Comment Threads. See here, here,  here, and here.

The argument: What if there were newspapers, but nobody read them? Especially with the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge legislation, and the recent GOP House Leadership’s attempt to sneak it past its base, the comment threads are more important, factually and analytically, as the MSM propaganda to which they are appended.

But the Empire knows this, hates it—and is striking back.

Here’s what the New York Times’ chief thread censor, Nigerian-American Community Manager Bassey Etim,  [pictured right]   [Email | Twitter] who supervises 13 (!) enforcers to fabricate the fake consensus you see on NYT comments threads, thinks of normal, patriotic, white Americans—the kind who fight and die in our wars, pay the taxes, do the productive, legal work (and research for me!):

Most of the newspaper comment sections I see are filled with racism, homophobia and barely literate anti-feminist rants…. The Internet is a big place, and there are a lot of spaces where you can say whatever you please, but nytimes.com is not the rest of the Internet. It’s a news Web site where the news is discussed in ways that don’t make you feel like you need to shower afterward.

[Comments on Comments by Samantha Henig, New York Times, September 20, 2013.]

Paradoxically, Etim then agreed with a reader—“the comments are where the real America is”—and added:

I spend a lot of my evenings in the world of comments too, and not just the night terrors. But I agree with that quote. The people who have access to media platforms are overwhelmingly likely to come from a [sic] certain cultural cliques,

Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the notorious Eight Banditos, gave a revealing speech to the Center for American Progress about the Tea Party  the other day. Conservatism Inc. types like Bill O’Reilly criticized Schumer’s remarkably blatant call for the IRS to be used against the Tea Party. But more important was Schumer’s equally blatant acknowledgement of the ethnic agenda behind post-1965 immigration policy—and behind the implacable drive for some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge, which the House GOP Leadership appeared to endorse this week.

Basically, according to Schumer, Tea Partiers are afraid of change. He drew an analogy with the Temperance Movement of the 1920s as a reaction to the changes wrought by the last 1880–1924 immigration Great Wave:

This reaction against social and cultural changes isn’t new to us. Edward Shils, a professor from the University of Chicago, wrote about the Temperance Movement identifying that it was about much more than abolishing liquor.  In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean, God-fearing life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces.

And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs.  Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.

Today, we see the Tea Party doing much of the same thing. Tea Party adherents see an America that's not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it. [Emphases added throughout].

The reference to Edward Shils is revealing: Shils, a member of the New York Intellectuals—a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in Chapter 6 of my book The Culture of Critique—was a leading theorist of the idea that attempts by majorities to resist the increase in the power and influence of other groups are contrary to the democratic process. A defining feature of the New York Intellectuals was their hostile reinterpretation of Populism, the anti-elite insurrectionary movement of the 1890s.

As I noted:

There were also real conflicts of interest involved. On one side

President Obama’s SOTU Tuesday night was widely billed as focusing on “inequality”—a tempting but ticklish subject for class-warfare Democrats, because it’s substantially exacerbated by the immigration they are treasonously counting on to elect a permanent Leftist majority. So Dem enforcers in the Main Stream Media have sprung into action.

Case in point: former Joe Biden aide Jared Bernstein’s January 22 blog post Immigration and Poverty, which the Huffington Post subsequently recycled in its economical way (January 23, 2014). John Boehner take note: the HuffPo comment thread was hearteningly skeptical, especially for a fashionably Leftist site.

After conceding the unavoidable fact that the US is importing poverty—

…True: in 2012 (most recent data) the poverty rate for native-born persons was 14.3 percent while that of the foreign-born was 19.2 percent

Bernstein [Email him] spins:

But that's not much of an insight. Since you could say the same thing about any group with below average incomes, it's pretty much saying we'd have less poverty if only we had fewer poor people. I suppose the anti-immigrant [sic] argument is that immigrants are not like other low-income, native-born groups because we don't have to accept them here. But while I agree that we and every other country should have the ability to control immigrant flows, no serious or realistic voices in this contentious debate are saying those flows should be zero….

[Emphasis definitely not in the original.]

VDARE.com has, of course, called repeatedly for just that: an immediate moratorium on all immigration, such as the one the U.S. imposed from 1924 to 1965. That forty-year breathing space allowed the melting pot to do its thing and create the cultural and economic unity we enjoyed in the Eisenhower-Kennedy era.

But we don’t claim to be “serious” or “realistic”—just correct.

Bernstein claims that it’s “not much of an insight” that poverty has an immigration dimension. He doesn’t specifically say what that dimension is, but back in in 2003 (we’ve been doing this for a long time) I pointed out that about 16% of the U.S. poverty population at that time were immigrants—to which should be added (rarely mentioned) their Anchor Baby minor children (another 7.5%) and (never mentioned) the adult descendants of the post-1965 Immigration Act influx, which I then estimated at another 13%. Total immigration dimension of poverty in 2003: well over a third—36.5%. In 2010, the  figure was 16.5 percent of immigrants living in poverty. [Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population, By Steven A. Camarota, CIS, August 2012.]

That sounds quite a lot of an insight to me. And that’s just the static effect. Immigration also has a dynamic effect: it increases labor market competition for native-born Americans. Bernstein admits he doesn’t deal with this—he calls it one of his analysis’ “significant omissions”—but he says he doubts it would “move the results in a big way.” This is completely implausible—see below.

Does immigration increase poverty in a given year? The answer, Jared acknowledges, is a simple “yes.” But “the more interesting and impactful” question, he insists, is: “What impact has immigration had on poverty over time and what might we expect in the future?”

Right again. And this graphic provides insight to the answer:

In 1947 nearly one-third (32%) of all families were officially classified as poor. [Have Antipoverty Programs Increased Poverty? By James Gwartney And Thomas S. McCaleb, Cato Journal 5, no: 1 (Spring/Summer 1985) PDF] In 1959—the year Census starting collecting poverty data—only one-fifth (22.4%) of persons had incomes below the poverty line. By 1973