August 24, 2010
I had lived almost all of my 50+ years in the New York City area, and the change is just stunning! I have gone from a city that is about 40% White, 30% Hispanic, 20% Black, and 10% Asian/other to a small city that is about 85% white, 10% black and 5% other. You really have to make such a move yourself to understand it, it's as if I not only moved physically, but also stepped into an H.G. Wells style Time Machine and stepped back to around 1975!
It really is amazing to go out anywhere in public and not hear Spanish or any other language but English spoken, and I've been here about two months. At my old address I would hear Spanish within seconds of entering any public place! Everybody, both the whites and the blacks are also much better behaved here than in New York. I really find it hard to put into words what it's like. If anyone who considers themselves a "Racial Conservative" and is still living in a multiracial part of America, I would say to you to stop being a modern day Jonah trying to survive in the belly of the multicultural whale and MOVE OUT NOW! It will give you such a positive lift to your psyche you won't regret it.
The only negative part I've noticed is that the Whites here are still rather naive about the profound changes sweeping much of the country racially, as they are living in an area where time has basically stood still, and take for granted the local demographics. It makes it harder for them to understand that being conservative (and it is a strongly conservative area) can also mean being a racial conservative without being ashamed of it.
Sometimes it feels like I've stepped into a movie that you might see on Turner Classics, except it's real and in color. This is more than just nostalgia, believe me. So again, if you are fed up with the changes that the 1965 Immigration Act, Liberalism and Multiculturalism have wrought in your city or town, and can't see it ever stopping, vote with your feet and move away! Yes, I know this just buys you some time, it doesn't solve the problem itself, but it's worth it in terms of your personal piece of mind.
October 3, 2009
An orthodox Jewish family threesome of grandfather, father & son dressed in jackets & neckties, a scruffy white teenage kid with a gross heavy metal t-shirt design gabbing on a cellphone, a couple of poorly dressed Black men sitting on a bench in front of a bodega advertising Play-lotto here, a couple of Hispanic families going into and out of a laundromat yakking away in Espanol, and a few Whites, mostly elderly, mixed in with several other younger brownish immigrant types. In the pharmacy, the Indian pharmacist was on the phone with a customer and apparently neither could understand one another. During all this time I was having to bite my lip to either keep from shouting out loud "Where have all the Whiteys gone!" or to keep from laughing because:
This isn't just Diversity anymore, it has become a pathetic caricature of itself, a big joke, like John Cleese of Monty Python days doing a Hitler comedy skit complete with silly goose-stepping walks. My hometown, which I've lived in for nearly all of my 50 odd years, is now like a foreign country to me. I figured out long ago that diversity wasn't our greatest source of strength, but now that White Plains, and much of Westchester County NY has been completely transformed by our Globalist Multiculturalist Elite overlords I've had it! I'm going to vote with my feet, and put the co-op for sale, weak market be damned, I'll take a loss just to get out of here now.
I think I'll move out to semi-rural 90+% white Indiana, where my sister's family lives. And for all of you White Liberals who love this diversity, who would get teary-eyed with joy taking the same five minute walk I just took, you can have it all to yourselves! Just make sure you stay in downstate New York, and California, and all the other parts you've ruined, and stay out of any county in America which is still 90+% white! And for any European-American who agrees with me, start planning your move too. It's time to draw a line in the sand and work on keeping the parts of America not overrun with Diversity the way they are. Geographic dominance will have to come first, before any real workable effort to stop what I call "The Great Transformation" can begin.
You know who the one person I felt sorry for in the crowd (besides myself) was? The orthodox Jewish 10 year old kid! I wonder if he ever asks his dad "Why am I so different from the others and have to dress up while everyone else dresses like slobs, etc.?" A better question would be "Is it really a good idea to be part of a closed Nation-within-a-Nation?" Because that's what America is becoming, a multicultural empire with open borders and countless nations-within-nations like the Black nation, Hispanic nation, Gay nation, Islamic nation, etc., all except for a White nation, but we can't have that because that would be RACIST!
America is breaking down tribally, as if it was reverting to its pre-European discovery days, when it was just the Indians, ethnically and racially similar in this case but broken into hundreds of tribes who spent centuries at war with each other. And this was with a total population estimated to have peaked at just 3 to 5 million in 1700! But now our current tribal breakdown is occurring with over population looming, and it can't end well. This new warfare, a political and cultural one, will be fought first in the courts, in the voting booth, in the State Legislatures and in Congress, and if not resolved, in the streets. This is why the USA Death Watch continues...
January 3, 2009
Apparently he has become the darling of the Russian media, and is getting frequent interviews about his prediction of the USA's breakup in 2010, a prediction he made back in 1998. The problem is that the Russian media has become more state controlled again, and there may be a bit of wishful thinking on their part, having experienced their own country's breakup in 1991.
While I agree with the reasons Panarin puts forth as to why the breakup will occur, I don't see it happening in 2010. I also find lots to disagree with as to what the post breakup map will look like. (See the map below.) Here are some of the articles highlights:
Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces.
He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by former Soviet analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
U.S. foreign debt is a "a pyramid scheme," and he predicts that China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.
Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles, but when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
The line about the wealthier states actually withholding funds is interesting, but that would mean the smaller states, as the large states like California and New York are already begging the Feds for their own bailout money, as they are in the red with their budgets. A very large number of the smaller states would have to withhold funds for the threat to be effective.
Also the line about Alaska going back to Russia, and Russia becoming a global financial regulator (ever heard of the EU?) seem to be written for Russian anti-American types only.
I also disagree with the part about foreign influence, I would see these groups of states becoming independent countries, with only Mexico having a strong influence in the Southwest. The part about Canada having influence over the tan colored "Central North American Republic" is absurd, that grouping alone would still be bigger than Canada in both population and GDP.
I also question the way Panarin splits the Old South in two, and splits Arizona and New Mexico. I would see both of them in one group, again under the influence of Mexico.
To sum up, while Panarin's theory is interesting, it seems to me to show a lack of understanding about the regional ethnic differences that exist in America, and wouldn't be a likely final scenario.
December 14, 2008
Ted Kennedy wasn't the only politician who got it wrong about what the 1965 Immigration Act would or wouldn't do to America. The bill was strongly supported and signed into law on October 3, 1965 by LBJ at the Statue of Liberty (Maybe it should be re-named the Statue of Immigration?). Here is an abridged version of his speech that day with some of my comments in bold:
This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power. Wrong - it's one of the most revolutionary bill ever!
Yet it is still one of the most important acts of this Congress and of this administration. For it does repair a very deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation. What's so cruel about controlling immigration?
The fairness of this standard is so self-evident that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. Yet the fact is that for over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system. Which you promptly replaced with with another injustice - all but totally ending white, European immigration.
Under that system the ability of new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply 70 percent of all the immigrants. Now only three countries still supply the same percentage, just three from the Third World.
Men were denied entrance because they came from southern or eastern Europe or from one of the developing continents. This system violated the basic principle of American democracy--the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. If this were true the Sept 11th attacks never would have happened.
It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. We can now believe that it will never again shadow the gate to the American Nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and privilege. So you made immigration to America a civil right, not a privilege as it should be.
Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide. The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources--because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples. Who no longer are interested in "joining and blending", but instead keeping their cultures intact and expanding them.
The days of unlimited immigration are past. Dead wrong, with illegal immigration included, it's virtually unlimited now.
…and so it has been through all the great and testing moments of American history. Our history this year we see in Vietnam. Men there are dying… Neither the enemy who killed them nor the people whose independence they have fought to save ever asked them where they or their parents came from. They were all Americans. By eliminating that same question as a test for immigration the Congress proves ourselves worthy of those men and worthy of our own traditions as a Nation. Those traditions are dying, now everyone is either a hyphenated-American, or would rather be known as a foreign national who just happens to live in America.
If that wasn't enough, LBJ also made a speech on July 1, 1968, marking the day the 1965 Act actually went into effect:
It was nearly 3 years ago, on one of the proudest days of my Presidency, that I stood at the foot of the Statute of Liberty and signed into the law of this land the Immigration Act of 1965.
Today that act takes full force. The lamp of liberty has never shone brighter. The golden door to immigration has never stood wider. The lamp of liberty is about as dim as it ever has been, and the golden door has been ripped off of its hinges.
Every American can be proud today because we have finally eliminated the cruel and unjust national origins system from the immigration policy of the United States. We have righted a long-standing wrong. Cruel and unjust because it favored white Western Europeans.
So today, any man, anywhere in the world, can hope to begin a new life of freedom and a new life of greater opportunity in the United States. No longer will his color or his religion or his nationality be a barrier to him. The only preferences will be for those who already have relatives here… No longer will only three nations supply 70 percent of America's immigrants. No longer will the people of one nation be less welcome here than the people of another nation. So now we are in danger of losing our white majority, of having Islam become a major threat to Christianity, chain immigration from the third world, dominated by Mexico, and becoming a hundred little nations within one overcrowded country.
This landmark act will work to enrich the heart of America--the people themselves. All who, over the years, have dreamed and labored for its achievement can take great satisfaction today.
Together we have helped to preserve the American dream--and more than that--we have opened its promise equally to all men everywhere. No, you are destroying the American dream, by overwhelming us with Third World poverty and tribalism.
President Lyndon Johnson left office a broken man, thanks to the tragedy of the Vietnam War. His name has been cursed by many tens of thousands of older Americans who lost loved ones in that war. Now, he can also be cursed as the President who signed the bill that gave birth to Multicultural America, and the birth of an era that I call The Great Transformation, the transformation of America into a potential Third World nation, an era that is now past its midpoint with the election of Obama as President.
December 11, 2008
In 1965, during the Senate floor debate over the Immigration Act, Ted Kennedy stated that:
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."
These statements have turned out to be totally false, and it should have become apparent to Kennedy that this was the case way back in the mid to late 1970's. It would have been honorable of him to have come to the Senate floor and stated something like: "We goofed big time on this bill, terribly sorry, and here's a new bill to cut back on our immigration levels, and I urge its passage."
Of course, that never happened. I've often wondered if Kennedy had ever been interviewed about it, and if he would have admitted he was either lying in 1965, or if not, if he might have felt any guilt about how wrong he was. It turns out that NPR did interview him about it in 2006, just as he began to push for another immigration bill that ultimately failed. After a couple of softball historical questions, Jennifer Ludden asks the following, with Kennedy's reply:
Q: What's striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain "substantially the same," and that "the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset." Why weren't these changes foreseen?
KENNEDY: There were enormous changes as a result of illegal immigration. A lot of the antagonism, frustration and anger is better focused at the illegality and the illegals that came here in very significant numbers. [People] are certainly frustrated by the illegality and the explosion of illegals who come here that have impact in terms of the economy, depressing wages, and taking jobs. But on the other hand, they have this incredible admiration and respect for their neighbor, the person at the corner store who is working 18 to 20 hours a day, trying to provide for their family, and whose child is serving in the armed forces of the country. They admire those [immigrants] they see in church, churchgoers who are trying to bring their kids up. So there's a very significant ambivalence in people's minds.
Q: But the level of even legal immigration has increased dramatically since 1965, even though many supporters of the legislation then said it would not.
KENNEDY: Everybody obviously wants to come, because this is the land of opportunity, but we've seen a rather dramatic shift as well in terms of the birthrate here. That was not really foreseen. You're having now the leveling off of the birthrate here among a number of families. You certainly saw that in terms of Europe and Western Europe, where there is an actual decline. I don't think we foresaw that so much at the time, 40 years ago. But that is a fact, and that sends all kinds of messages.
To be energized we need new workers, younger workers, who are going to be a part of the whole economy. We don't have them here in the United States. There are greater outreach efforts being made in terms of trying to keep people in the labor market longer. We need to have the skills of all of these people. The fact is, this country, with each new wave of immigrants, has been energized and advanced, quite frankly, in terms of its economic, social, cultural and political life. And I think that's something that will continue into the future. I don't think we ought to fear it, we ought to welcome it.
Q: Some have suggested it was a mistake to make family reunification the main purpose of our immigration law. They say perhaps we should have a system more like Canada's, which lets people in based largely on their skills. How do you respond to these criticisms?
KENNEDY: I think our tradition of the Statue of Liberty is to be willing to accept the unwashed as well as the highly skilled. There are a lot of people who haven't had opportunities in other places as a result of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and discrimination. Are we going to say we refuse to let any of those individuals come in because we've got someone who has happened to have a more advantaged situation? I'm not sure that's what this country is all about.
And that was the end of the interview, at least that's all there is on the NPR website. It seems so brief, almost as if Kennedy was getting uncomfortable with the questioning and cut the interview short. And this was an interview from NPR, a friendly liberal network!
Given the chance to be honest, Kennedy instead gives us a typical wishy-washy politicians answer, first blaming the unexpected increase on illegal immigration, which had nothing to do with the 1965 act, which was about giving an equal chance for anybody to immigrate to America legally. He then tries to justify the increase by talking about a completely new subject, America's birthrate, as if the unexpected modest drop in the birthrate of the native born could somehow justify a massive increase in immigration.
The truth of the matter is that the 1965 Act had a provision for unlimited "non-quota" increases for family members in addition to the "quota" or primary part of the Bill. This lead to what has become known as chain immigration, and the overall skyrocketing legal numbers. This provision must have been ignored or overlooked in 1965, but Kennedy and his supporters should have known of its potential. Some people in Washington DID know about it, the same interviewer also reports:
In 1965, the political elite on Capitol Hill may not have predicted a mass increase in immigration. But Marian Smith, the historian for Customs and Immigration Services, showed me a small agency booklet from 1966 that certainly did. It explains how each provision in the new law would lead to a rapid increase in applications and a big jump in workload -- more and more so as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come.
I'd love to see a copy of that booklet from 1966, issued fully two years before the 1965 Act actually went into effect in 1968. It's a shame there wasn't more opposition to the bill back then, for we now know that the 1965 Immigration Act, originally supposed to be a minor addition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has become one of the most profound and infamous of any legislation ever to come out of Washington.
December 6, 2008
November 29, 2008
I hope that anyone reading this is familiar with America's first ten constitutional amendments,
also know as the Bill of Rights. They were written to protect the people from a despotic government, in particular the ones the Founding Fathers were familiar with. If you need a refresher, see this link: bill of rights.
Some have argued that the Bill of Rights has become increasingly meaningless in today's America, and I would have to agree that some of them are largely ignored, but not all of them. Still, they are all slowly becoming endangered, and a key reason for this is the rise of Modern Liberalism and its chief form of enforcement, what I have named in earlier posts as the Bureaucratic Class.
One thing that makes it difficult is that their enforcement is a subtle one, call it Political Correctness if you wish, but it really is more of a "what you can & can't say or think" matter than an actual set of codified beliefs or laws. This is likely deliberately done in order to complicate matters and confuse us, and to hide the truth of where Liberals want to take us.
Therefore I going to try to make things more clear via the list below, mirroring the original Bill of Rights:
What if modern liberals were to codify their beliefs into their own “Anti-Bill of Rights”:
Laws for the Modern Liberal, Multicultural West:
1-There shall be no discrimination or intolerance of any kind, against any minority group, for any reason. Violations are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (a.k.a. The Prime Directive).
2-Only liberals can define who a minority group is, and what is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and they can redefine this as many times as needed.
3-Our diversity is our greatest source of strength. Anything that adds to our diversity is permitted.
4-All expressions of diversity must not just be tolerated, but celebrated.
5-The national boundaries, identities, and traditions of Western countries are to be abolished.
6- Immigration into Western countries is to be as unrestricted as possible and referred to as Migrations of Oppressed Peoples. 6a- No human being is illegal.
7-No white majority raced city, state, or country can actively continue to preserve this majority. To do so is now officially racist.
8-Religious expression by Christians is permitted only if no other group objects. Muslims, in particular, are exempt from this law.
9-Differences in intelligence and behavior amongst groups is a social construct, and a product of white racism. Any evidence to the contrary is also racist.
10-Ultimate goal: Where everything is either forbidden or compulsory.
In a word, all of the above can be summed up as Deconstruction, that being the elimination of the West's previous culture, race, faith, and traditions and replacing it with a sort of Utopian Brotherhood of Man. Group differences would still exist, but would be meaningless. It would be a racially diverse multicultural society, borderless, but without group conflict.
But the problem is while this Grand Experiment, this Walden Two is ongoing, (1) the rest of the world continues its traditional ways of tribalism and group conflict, and (2) the West winds up with an oppressive government, because the Experiment will ultimately fail, human nature being what it is. That's why I listed #10 above, it would be the mirror opposite of the intent of the original Tenth Amendment.