Recent News

Contemporary American society is celebrity-obsessed, and celebrities are rich, famous and influential. One of those celebrities is Eva Longoria.

Eva Longoria was born in Texas in 1975, of Mexican ancestry. Her first big role was in the soap opera The Young and the Restless (2001-2003). She achieved her biggest acting role as Gabrielle Solis in Desperate Housewives, which ran from 2004 to 2012.

Aside from her matchless thespian talent, Miss Longoria is a model who has appeared on the covers of magazines and has been featured in advertising campaigns by L’Oreal, Bebe Sport, Hanes, New York & Co., Magnum Ice Cream, Heineken, Microsoft and London Fog.  She has received numerous accolades, having been listed in the “Most Beautiful People” list by People en Español, as #1 in Maxim’s Hottest Female Stars of 2005 and 2006, #9 in Maxim’s Hot 100 2007 list, #14 on People’s Most Beautiful List of 2011, and in the 2012 People list Most Beautiful at Every Age.

She was a judge on Next Food Network Star and hostess of the 2010 MTV Europe Music Awards.

Eva Longoria has made a lot of money. She was #1 on Forbes magazine’s list of highest-paid TV actresses of 2011, pulling in 13 million dollars last year.

She has her own perfume “EVA by Eva Longoria” and she’s published her own cookbook.

The celebrity marriage/divorce is also a staple of the celebrity lifestyle, and Eva’s been part of two of those: the first with Tyler Christopher of General Hospital (2002-2004); the second with Tony Parker of the San Antonio Spurs (2007 to 2011). The rights to publicize her Paris wedding to Parker had been marketed to OK! magazine.  

On the rebound from her marriage to Tony Parker (get the pun?), she has dated Spanish actress Penelope Cruz’s little brother Eduardo.

So Eva Longoria is a big celebrity, in our celebrity-crazed society. She’s rich, successful, popular and comfortable.

She is also a full-fledged leftist Raza promoter. For several years, she has worked for the activist organization known as the National Council of La Raza. (For more on that outfit, see my article Yes, La Raza Really Does Mean “The Race” – And the Idea Was Invented By A Nazi Sympathizer

Unlike most Americans, Eva Longoria doesn’t want illegal aliens deported. She has agitated for more Spanish translators in hospitals

Of course Eva is for the DREAM Act. And, again unlike most Americans, she opposes Arizona’s SB 1070.

In fact, she teamed up with MALDEF (Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund) to

Paul Kersey is best known as the man behind Stuff Black People Don’t Like, a Dissident Right blog that chronicles the increasingly dysfunctional and violent nature of black America.  But in his new book, Escape from Detroit:The Collapse of America's Black Metropolis , he concentrates on the role of race and demographic change in the fall of the Motor City.

Demography is destiny and that is very evident in Detroit. In 1912, blacks were slightly over one percent of the population.  One hundred years later, blacks are 82 percent of Detroit (and 92 percent of the core city). They have controlled the city government for roughly 40 years. During that time, Detroit went from being the “Paris of the West” and the “Arsenal of Democracy” to a symbol of American failure, ineptitude and decline.

In the 1920s, Detroit was home to the tallest buildings in the world. It was a cosmopolitan city with a thriving arts and cultural scene. Its innovative architecture can still be seen today in empty and dilapidated old buildings such as Michigan Central Station, the Metropolitan Building, Lee Plaza and Broderick Tower.(Right.)

Even into the 1960s, Detroit was a modern, advanced and civilized place. It was even a candidate to host the 1968 Olympics. This hilarious 1965 promotional video [Detroit: City on the Move in the '60s]—narrated by then-mayor Jerome Cavanagh, more on him later—shows Detroit right before the collapse (it “stands at the threshold of a bright new future,” as the video puts it). The comment thread on YouTube suggests it was made in an attempt to halt white flight—blacks were just 26% of the population in the mid-1960s but committed over 65% of the crime.

(Ironically, the New York Times has just linked to a similar  video, apparently because it also features GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, the then-Governor of Michigan. The NYT concluded, typically: “Who knows if the Olympics could have helped Detroit mitigate [the coming] calamities?” Paul Kersey knows! Flashback Friday: Detroit’s Olympic Dream , By Joanne C. Gerstner, May 23, 2012)

Whites were still over 70 percent of Detroit’s population at this point and the city boasted museums, a symphony, parks, beaches, skyscrapers, universities, libraries, highways, good schools and restaurants, businesses, night life, theaters, concerts and numerous cultural festivals. The video shows flocks of white people (with only occasional blacks) going about their daily lives and having fun. Detroit truly was “A City on the Move.” It must be painful for the old white residents of Detroit to view this and remember how great their city used to be.

Today’s Detroit is a much different place. It has lost over 60 percent of its population since 1950. Half of all people in the city are functionally illiterate. It has not one major chain supermarket. All public school students are eligible for the free lunch program. Detroit is home to the largest deserted skyscraper in the world. Billions of gallons of water are lost every year through a neglected, century-old sewer system. The average price of a home in 2009 was just $7,000.

Forbes recently rated Detroit as “The Most Dangerous City in America,” and with

Before Trayvon Martin had even been buried, his parents were seeking to cash in on his death, to the tune of millions of dollars.

They contacted a black lawyer, Benjamin Crump, who had engineered a race hoax in the boot camp death of black juvenile delinquent Martin Lee Anderson and gotten a $7.15 million settlement from the state of Florida. [Trayvon Martin Case Repeats 2006 “Playbook” for Martin Lee Anderson by Dan Riehl and Lee Stranahan, Big Journalism, April 2, 2012.]

Crump’s method is extra-legal but typical of the tactics developed since the 1960s by the trial lawyer-Ralph Nader alliance: he gets his journalistic and political allies (e.g. Al Sharpton) to steamroll the authorities with race hoax demagoguery, forcing them to settle before trial. Thus the hoax, and Crump's limited litigation skills, are never actually tested in court.

Black race hoaxes have become a big, well-organized business. They divert millions and even billions of dollars from Americans to blacks and their non-black allies—in addition to the trillions that have already been seized and directed blackward, via government coercion, from white taxpayers. [See my America’s Debt to Blacks Already Paid in Full, Middle American News, August 2001.]

From 1954 to 1987, the occasional hoaxes, often involving false charges of “police brutality", were typically more about power, and helping black criminals, than money. (For example, Howard Beach.)

The mid-1980s saw the entry of Al Sharpton and “activist attorneys” Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason.

Mason helped engineer the first (to my knowledge) Columbia race hoax. On March 22, 1987, during three separate attacks at Columbia University, a mob of seven young black men students and non-students beat up a total of five white Columbia men students.

A group called Concerned Black Students at Columbia [CBSC)], represented by Mason, transformed the black racist attacks into one in which

"a mob of white students had kicked and stomped

 See also: Discoloring The News, by “The Fifth Columnist”

As a local newsman, I have been particularly interested in the Virginian-Pilot’s now-notorious attempt to suppress the story of a black mob’s beating two members of its own staff, Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami.

As I argued here almost exactly three years ago, this sort of thing usually arises from the characteristic culture of the American newsroom. No marching orders to manipulate facts need be given. The newsroom worldview literally inoculates reporters and editors against ideas that might cause them to question the typical Main Stream Media narrative.

But I now must add this proviso: While the leftist worldview  drives  most news coverage in concept, and most reporters and editors do not consciously insert bias into most stories, in some cases, by omission or commission, they flat out lie.

Nothing else explains what occurred, for instance, in NBC’s editing of the audio tapes of George Zimmerman’s call to police the night he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense.

And nothing else explains why the Pilot buried the story.

Thus, for example the Pilot’s Editor, Denis Finley (email him), said in his memo to the staff trying to explain away his behavior:

Based on the facts, this story did not cross the bar to be published because as a general rule, The Pilot doesn't publish stories about simple assaults. ...

We have done our due diligence with the story. We have checked the police reports. I have read them. We have checked to see whether there is an inordinate

Conor Friedersdorf [Email him]is an editor for The Atlantic and a self-proclaimed man of the Right, though not of course so disreputable as to call himself part of the conservative movement. On his inevitably PC pontification on L’Affaire Derb, [How John Derbyshire Perceived Racial Attitudes at National Review, Atlantic Blog, April 9, 2012] Friedersdorf interpreted the departure of the self-described “mild and tolerant” racist as part of the inevitable marginalization of the “retrograde faction” of the conservative movement. Apparently, what Friedersdorf calls the “limits of ‘standing athwart history yelling stop’” are reached right about when one dared to question the merits of transition to a majority-minority society.  

Friedersdorf noted that, some years ago, Derbyshire himself had described the generation gap over race at National Review in these words:

The kind of thoughtful and intelligent young people that NR would like to have as readers understand that there are problems and absurdities connected with race in our public life, and are happy to hear arguments pro and con about racial profiling, affirmative action, and so on. They laugh with us when we lampoon the more outrageous kind of black race hustler—a Sharpton, a Farrakhan, a Johnny Cochran. They are, however, determined to make the multiracial society work, they believe it can be made to work in spite of the hustlers and liberal guilt-mongers, and they are unwilling to read, say, or think anything that could be construed as unkind towards people of other races. The pessimism and cynicism on this topic that you rather commonly find among conservatives—including NR readers—born in 1930, or even 1950, are profoundly unappetizing to these younger conservatives. Highest common denominator: An interview with John Derbyshire, By Bernard Chapin, Enter Stage Right, May 19, 2003 (Emphases added)

Friedersdorf gloated that the termination of Derbyshire has brought National Review

“a step closer to relying on the younger rather than the older generation of conservatives. On subjects related to race that’s a good thing.”

Why is refusing to “read, say, or think” a good thing? Friedersdorf doesn’t say, of course. But we can assume he thinks that the never-ending dispossession of whites is so self-evidently virtuous it doesn’t require defense.

But is Friedersdorf correct to gloat (and Derbyshire correct to be pessimistic) about the younger generation of conservatives?

Well, I am significantly younger than Friedersdorf (he’s over the hill at 30-something) and I’ve worked extensively with college students on behalf the Beltway Right. He has a point: as I myself have argued on VDARE.com, campus conservatives and libertarians are typically broken to Politically Correct orthodoxy and even eager to serve as enforcers. However, a deeper look shows that that circumstances that underlie this system of control are shaky, and may not last much longer.

If every movement starts as a cause, becomes a business, and ends as a racket, the conservative movement, or what can now more properly be called Conservatism Inc., has passed into its terminal stage. Its success in achieving nominal political power, in the 1980 Reagan and 1994 Republican Revolutions, has created a genuinely new profession, that of a movement functionary.

Whatever else one can say of William F. Buckley and the founders of the conservative movement, none had anything to gain materially beyond what they could have gotten as conventional liberals. But that is simply no longer true. Young “conservatives” can dream of being pundits, columnists, or (shudder) “strategists”—and even the ultimate apotheosis, becoming a Token Conservative in the Mainstream Media.

But these career ambitions absolutely require that they must avoid saying interesting or challenging things. If these “conservatives” want to make a living shadow boxing with liberals on TV, it’s all very well to talk about fighting entitlements, but they know they must toe the line on the issues that really matter to liberals, namely, race, immigration, and culture. Conservatism Inc. collaborates in not rocking the boat and keeping debate within the approved parameters.

But the same time, the American Right is straining from within. Young conservatives may avoid

[See also Monarchy, Nation-States, And The Failed Reign of "Elizabeth The Useless"]

Those of us who pay attention to such things will have noticed a difference between the BBC coverage of the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and of the present Diamond Jubilee. Ten years ago, the coverage was adequate, though reluctant and even a little stiff. This time, it has been gushing and completely uncritical. There are various possible reasons for my observation. The first is that I was mistaken then and am mistaken now. I do not think this is the case, but feel obliged to mention it. The second is that Golden Jubilees are rare events, and Diamond Jubilees very rare events, and that extreme rarity justifies a setting aside of republican scruples. The third is that the BBC was taken by surprise in 2002 by the scale of public enthusiasm, and does not wish to be caught out again. The fourth is that, while not particularly conservative on main issues, we do now have a Conservative Government, and this is headed by a cousin of Her Majesty. There may be many other reasons.

However, I believe the chief reason to be that the new British ruling class has finally realised what ought always to have been obvious. This is that, so far from being the last vestige of an old order, dominated by hereditary landlords and legitimised by ideologies of duty and governmental restraint, the Monarchy is an ideal fig leaf for the coalition of corporate interests and cultural leftists and unaccountable bureaucracies that is our present ruling class. The motto for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee was “Sixty Years a Queen.” The motto now might as well be “Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp.” If, during the six decades of her reign, England has been transformed from a great and powerful nation and the classic home of civil liberty into a sinister laughing stock, the ultimate responsibility for all that has gone wrong lies with Elizabeth II.

Now, I can – as Enoch Powell once said – almost hear the chorus of disapproval. How dare I speak so disrespectfully of our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady? Do I not realise that, under our Constitution, Her Majesty reigns, but the politicians rule? How, in all conscience, can I shift blame for what has happened from the traitors who

After taping John Stossel's show on March 16 in New York, the Mrs. and I took the 10 a.m. Acela back to Washington. Once we had boarded the train, who should come waddling up the aisle but Bill Kristol.

The Weekly Standard editor seemed cheerful, and