Recent News

ANTI-IMMIGRATION TONE ALIENATING HISPANICS declares the title of an Associated Press article, dispensing the conventional wisdom on the All-Important-Hispanic-Vote-and-Why-Republicans-Must-Kowtow-To-It. Here’s how it begins:

This daily cartoon contributed to VDARE.com by Baloo. His site is HERE

[See also The Fulford File, By James Fulford | When Records Are Sealed—A Meditation On Martin Luther King Day]

Among the sins that neoconservative enforcers ascribed to presidential candidate Ron Paul, one that weighed particularly heavy for the Weekly Standard’s editors is a statement Paul once made (or might have made) describing Martin Luther King as a “world class philanderer who beat up his paramours.” According to writer James Kirchick [The Company Ron Paul Keeps, December 26, 2011], Paul also said (or might have said) that the fallen civil rights leader “seduced underage girls and boys.“ [Ron Paul Newsletter, December 1990, PDF]

These comments are held to indicate that Paul was a shameless racist. Although King’s womanizing can be found in any standard biography, while the notion that he preyed on young female followers is evident from certain revealing FBI files,(sealed until 2027, but contents fairly well known) Kirchick and the Weekly Standard consider it nothing short of blasphemy that anyone dare criticize a man they insist we venerate.

 In significant contrast, the neoconservative press never showed the slightest inhibition about publishing and fawning over the now-deceased outspoken atheist and ex-Marxist Christopher Hitchens, although he raged in print against the Judeo-Christian deity and poured obscene bile on Mother Theresa. Hitchens enjoyed the adulation of National Review not in spite of but apparently because of his irreverence. Michael Novak in NRO told readers about how much he “admired the courage and polemical force” with which Hitchens defended his atheism. [Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure, May 17, 2007]

After all, some things count more than some other things. Insulting a Christian saint and wishing her ill may not be tasteful—but it isn’t as bad as noticing that a Civil Rights saint, whose birthday is a now national religious holiday, behaved badly around women.

 Furthermore, Paul added insult to injury by once suggesting that the MLK birthday was turning into “Hate Whitey Day.” [December 1990, JPG]What kind of hate-filled mind would utter this far-fetched conceit? (Other than mine?)

We’re now supposed to be past the idea that King’s birthday could be used for any other purpose than to celebrate interracial brotherhood. And yet, for some reason, the events and TV programs I’ve encountered in connection with the MLK festival seem all centered on white racist iniquities.

Perhaps I’ve not been looking at the right places to see how America’s civil rights struggle and its central hero are truly celebrated.

Supposedly the places where we may learn about the “real King” are neoconservative publications and GOP foundations. According to Establishment Conservative sources, King was a conservative thinker and a conservative Christian theologian. He devoted his life to building a “color-blind society” and drew on a wide range of patristic and medieval authorities, including the Pauline Epistles, Saint Augustine and the Summa of Thomas Aquinas.

This learned theologian put his life on the line to realize his Christian conservative values in a society full of primitive racist delusions. Human Events (November 14, 2011) assures us that the Tea Party Revolt is now following the “legacy of Martin Luther King,” and the head of The Conservative Student Union, David Ferguson, writing in the same publication (January 5, 2007), refers to King’s birthday as

Last summer, I wrote an essay for VDARE.com about my personal journey from liberalism, with a Jewish bent, to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The essay inspired many emails, some of which raised very interesting points. VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has suggested that I respond to some of the most provocative comments.

First, my essay’s salient points:

See also: Cecilia Munoz: The Minority Occupation Government Tightens Grip)

With public attention focused on the GOP primaries, the White House quietly promoted another self-dealing lobbyist to serve as President Obama's top domestic policy adviser. Promises? What broken promises? 

Cecilia Munoz, the current director of intergovernmental affairs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., will now serve as head of the Domestic Policy Council. She'll wield heightened influence at Obama's daily morning briefings and expand her reach from immigration issues to education, health care and beyond.

Gushing headlines heralded the advancement of Obama's top Hispanic civil rights "advocate" as a win for the "middle class." But Munoz is a veteran member of the Beltway lobbyist class whose former organization is reaping a taxpayer-funded windfall as she climbs the government ladder.

Before joining Team Obama, Munoz spent two decades as chief registered lobbyist

I used to know a man who had the annoying habit of saying that people who differed from him might claim X, “but the reality is…”.

This was annoying because he had no better hold on reality than anyone else. And frequently what he called “the reality” is what the rest of us call “the conventional wisdom.”

I was reminded of that when I saw a story headed Immigration: Rhetoric vs. reality, [by Chris Kromm [Email him], The Institute for Southern Studies, January 10, 2011]

The Institute for Southern Studies, founded “in 1970 by veterans of the civil rights movement,” describes itself as promoting “A New Vision for a Changing South,” which means that it’s sort of an anti-VDARE.com. (A lot better funded—please send us money.)

Recently, it’s promoting a vision of a new, this time more Mexican, South by attacking Republicans for caring about immigration.

The reason it’s wrong to care about immigration? Because “the reality is” that immigration has all stopped! There aren’t any immigrants!

Kromm writes:

Just as immigration is growing as a hot political topic in the South and country, the number of immigrants is in steep decline.

A new study from Princeton's Mexican Migration Project finds that,

“Immigration Overload” is my term for America’s plight. But the special pleadings just keep coming. The latest cry for importing more cheap labor comes from virtually everyone associated with agriculture:

I am told there has been relatively little coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case in the U.S.  (although the Wall Street Journal has just carried an Op Ed arguing that “Racism and other prejudices would not survive in a police system subject to market forces” [Competing to Be Impartial, by Jamie Whyte, January 10, 2012])

But the circus that was enabled by Lawrence’s murder and has been running for nearly two decades now has reached its climax with the conviction of the alleged killers, after what amounted to a political show trial. So it is worth giving a more or less unadorned recital of the facts.

Stephen Lawrence was a black youth who died from a knife wound given on a South London street in April 1993. A few months later, five white youths were arrested in connection with the death. In April 1994, the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was too little evidence to justify murder charges.

Every “anti-racist” activist in the country promptly set up a shrill cry about the alleged worthlessness of black life. And someone whose best-known photograph shows him giving a black power salute began a posthumous rise in England to stand between Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.

Because the Authorities had given up on the case, the Lawrence family began a private prosecution (very rarely allowed in Britain) against three of the white youths—Neil Acourt, Gary Dobson and Luke Knight. In April 1996, the trial judge ruled that the evidence given by Duwayne Brooks, the main prosecution witness, was hopelessly unreliable, and instructed the jury to acquit. This did not prevent an inquest jury from ruling, a year later, that Stephen Lawrence had been “unlawfully killed” by five white youths—a finding that exceeded their instructions.

By now, there was a Labour Government in Britain, and it was no longer necessary for Ministers to be led by the bureaucracy and the Main Stream Media. Instead, the Ministers themselves were determined to bring about an irreversible shift in law and public discourse. Though not quite a crime, even questioning whether England should become  a state-imposed  multicultural love feast was to be made dangerous.

The Home Secretary of the day, Jack Straw, set up an enquiry under William Macpherson, a retired judge. Published in 1999, the Macpherson Report unveiled the concept of “institutional racism,” and made various recommendations, including a dangerously broad definition of a racial incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”, that would effectively make the police an enforcement agency of the race relations bureaucracy.

The Macpherson Report also suggested that the men acquitted in the Lawrence case should be retried, once the little matter of the 800-year-old double jeopardy rule had been swept aside.

The law was accordingly changed, by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Acquittals could now be overturned for murder if “significant new evidence” of guilt could be found.

It took another six years after this for the required new evidence to be produced. Eventually, though, Gary Dobson was put on trial for a second time, and he was joined in the dock by David Norris, who had been arrested in 1993, but never charged. Both were found guilty of murder on January 3 2012, and sentenced to long spells in prison.

Britain’s Main Stream Media went into a long and simultaneous orgasm. People keep telling me that their own dissenting comments have been deleted from the newspaper websites.

Now, what to say about all this?

Bluntly, it strikes me as reasonable to suppose that the two men were framed. They had been demonized and reviled ever since they were first arrested, and I doubt if