Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

Aztlan rising II

Well, at least we can be pleased that the reconquistadors aren’t actually physically attacking the American players… at least not yet:

If the U.S. soccer team were hoping for the home advantage during Saturday’s Gold Cup final then they were in for a nasty surprise. Despite being the ‘home’ side in California’s Rose Bowl stadium, the majority of fans – most of them American born of naturalized Mexicans – booed and jeered the U.S. team.

The surprising scenes were followed by angry outbursts from U.S. team goalkeeper Tim Howard, who was visibly shaken after the entire post match ceremony was conducted in Spanish…. The Americans were not even spared in the trophy ceremony after Mexico’s 4-2 win – booed for one final time as they were announced as runners up.

California is done and gone already, most Americans simply don’t realize it yet. If one thing is clear from all my history reading, it is that most people don’t recognize the historical patterns at work until they are complete. It’s only a matter of time before the California Mexicans refuse to recognize U.S. sovereignty over them or the land they have peacefully reclaimed in the same way they presently refuse to recognize America’s national team.

So much for integration.

Epitaph for the GOP

Pat Buchanan does the demographic and electoral math:

Republicans lose the Hispanic vote 3-to-2. In bad years, like 2008, they lose it 2-to-1. Whites are already a minority in California, and Hispanics will eventually become the majority.

Say goodbye to the Golden Land.

Asian-Americans voted 3-to-2 for Obama, black Americans 24-to-1. The Asian population in California and the nation is growing rapidly. The black population, 13 percent of the nation, is growing steadily.

Whites, already a minority in our two most populous states, will be less than half the U.S. population by 2041 and a minority in 10 states by 2020.

Consider now the Electoral College picture.

Of the seven mega-states, California, New York and Illinois appear lost to the GOP. Pennsylvania has not gone Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida, both crucial, are now swing states. Whites have become a minority in Texas. When Texas goes, America goes.

This year could be the last hurrah.

Fortunately, Karl Rove has proved Buchanan wrong, as he has assured us that Hispanics are “natural conservatives”, as evidenced by the way they usually choose between a socialist party and a neo-communist party in their native lands. Or something.

The remarkable thing is that if you ask the average Republican, he will still insist that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a good thing and immigration is good for America. Thus proving that while Democrats are evil, Republicans are reliably stupid. If Romney 2012 is the last hurrah, then the party well merits its demise.

Africans kill each other, white disarmament the answer

Obama comes out of the closet on gun control:

Faced with a clamor in his party for stricter gun control in the wake of the Colorado movie-theater massacre, President Obama said Wednesday night he would “leave no stone unturned” in seeking new measures to reduce violence nationwide, including more restrictive background checks on gun purchases.

“A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Mr. Obama said at the annual National Urban League convention in New Orleans. “They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

The president blamed “politics and lobbying” for defeating gun-control measures when outcries arise after mass shootings in the U.S. And he said the nation’s attention should not just be focused on mass shootings, such as the one on Friday in Aurora, Colo., but on the daily shooting deaths of youths from gun violence in major cities.

“Every day, the number of young people we lose to violence is about the same as the number of people we lost in that movie theater,” Mr. Obama said. “For every Columbine or Virginia Tech, there are dozens gunned down on the streets of Chicago or Atlanta, here in New Orleans.

Let me see here. If young Africans are regularly gunning down other young Africans in large cities where there are already stringent gun control laws, how is disarmingattempting to disarm white suburbanites and exurbanites going to reduce the level of violence in any way?

It seems to me that disarming suburban white America is much more likely to lead to this sort of thing. One of the reason the urban Africans tend to restrict their violence to their own turf is because they know they’re both outnumbered and outgunned outside it.

And as far as I’m concerned, every adult male citizen should be required by law to own an AK-47, a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle with a scope. If the Republicans had any real balls, they would pass such a law and dare the Democrats to oppose it.

Interracial illegitimacy

A few months ago, I commented that when I was at Disneyland, I saw white families, I saw black families, and I saw single white women with mulatto children. As it turns out, this wasn’t simple happenstance, because based on the statistics reported by the CDC, a white woman has better than a 2 in 3 chance of being married to the white father of her children. A black woman has slightly worse than a 1 in 3 chance of being married to the black father of her children. But a white woman has barely a 1 in 10 chance of being married to the black father of her children.

You can check the math and see the posts from Susan Walsh and Steve Sailer that inspired me to have a look at the data at Alpha Game.

So much for integration

But I’m sure the Univision viewers are deeply and intimately attached to some words on paper written by dead white Englishmen more than two centuries ago:

Univision was the No. 1 television network in America among the coveted adults 18-49 and adults 18-43 demos last week — just the third time that has happened. From July 2-8, the Spanish-language net beat CBS by 42%, ABC by 15%, NBC by 7% and Fox by 1% in 18-49. Among 18-34 the spread was more pronounced, with Univision outdelivering CBS by 150%, NBC by 60%, ABC by 57% and Fox by 16%.

Don’t worry. When the NFL and MLB start leading off their broadcasts in Spanish, I’m sure there will be some sort of red button that you can press to let you listen to the English commentary.

Breaking the silence

I found this report of vibrancy breaking out in Portland to be an interesting lapse. Either the media in Oregon failed to get the message or the mainstream media is beginning to give up in its futile attempts to conceal the race of blacks who are attacking whites on an increasingly regular basis throughout America:

Portland Police are investigating two “large-scale” fights that happened in Laurelhurst Park in Southeast Portland earlier this week. According to Sgt. Pete Simpson, both fights involved groups of black teenagers randomly attacking people in the park.

Simpson said the first incident happened on June 13 around 10:30 p.m. That’s when officers responded to reports of 150 drunken teenagers in the park.

Officers arrived and found several groups of teens leaving. As they continued through the park a young woman flagged them down and pointed out a 14-year-old boy who had been beaten up, Simpson said. He was lying on a picnic table. The boy had been hit in the face and paramedics were called to treat his injuries.

According to Simpson, the victim told officers he was with a friend in the park when he was punched from behind. He said his attackers were 5-10 black teenagers who were randomly attacking white teens in the park. He said they also attacked a homeless man. The victim said the attackers stole his cell phone, iPod, headphones and hat.

The second attack happened the next night, also around 10:30 p.m. In that case, officers got a report of a fight involving more than 20 people in the park.

They didn’t find the fight when they arrived but did find three men who said they were attacked by a group of 20-30 black teenagers, Simpson said.

Events such as these tend to suggest that segregation will eventually be reestablished in whatever remnant of the United States remains in the possession of European-Americans once the political breakup occurs sometime after 2030. It was possible for whites to flee Detroit, Los Angeles, and Rhodesia. But now that the inevitable consequences of vibrancy are being felt in former white redoubts such as Portland, Shakopee, Stockholm, and Oslo, there simply isn’t anywhere else to go. It hasn’t even been fifty years since the Civil Rights Act unleashed vibrancy on America; in another fifty years, American whites will be choosing between a violent return to the policies they previously rejected and dying out.

The great tragedy is that it never had to be this way. But periods of peace and prosperity inevitably give way to periods of war and hardship, and unfortunately, they are usually proportional to the scale of what has gone before. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is something anyone should eagerly anticipate, as it’s not going to be fun for anyone. I suspect it is going to be considerably worse than the forty-year period from 1910 to 1950, especially for Americans who were largely insulated from the global war. This time, they’ll be at ground zero.

The Portland police’s advice to parents to tell their children to avoid public parks at night even if they are open, dutifully repeated by the female reporter and seconded by the female news anchor, is rather amusing in light of the collective fainting fit that met John Derbyshire’s recommendation for parents to tell their children to avoid large gatherings of blacks. Thus we see, as has been described by Steve Sailer and others, that SWPL attitudes about race are no different than those of open white supremacists, they are simply concealed by one thin level of transparent pretense.

Israel and Immigration II

Chelm continues to insist that Vox is Wrong in Comparing Israel’s African Immigrant Problem and the Medieval Jewish Expulsions:

This post is going to be dedicated to Vox’s assertion that Israel’s deportation of African Immigrants would provide and ex post facto justification of the medieval deportations of Jews and the Arab expulsions in the 1950s. This is of course, laughable, but before I start, I want to point out a few places where Vox has conceded my arguments in his last post on the subject. Vox wrote:

I do agree that Americans are largely unprepared for European openness about matters of race in general and Jews in particular. I would simply assert that I am using primarily American language on the blog, though I suppose it’s entirely possible that I’m not always as conscious of the distinctions anymore given how long it has been since I left.

In this paragraph Vox has conceded the following points:

He did not dispute that there is a correlation between the frequency anti-semitic speech and actual violence against Jews.
He did not dispute that an increase in anti-semitic speech often proceeds actual violence against Jews.
And that his writing regarding Jews can reasonably be viewed as a change in discourse for the subject of Jews in America… so can be reasonably be classified as dangerous.

…which was the the whole point of my original post, that the alt-right philosophy is dangerous. So, thank you Vox for conceding the point.

I found this to be more than a little amusing, because Chelm has confused a failure to dispute something with a concession. In that paragraph, I also failed to dispute the Moon landings, the historical legitimacy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the superiority of the Green Bay Packers, and the Palestinian right of return. But I did not concede any of those things, any more than I conceded the four points that Chelm has tried to claim that I conceded. In his eagerness to score a point and claim a concession, Chelm has done nothing more than attack his own credibility.

But since this is a teachable moment, I will not use this minor debacle as an excuse to blow off the rest of his argument, but will proceed to read through it.

First, I would like to remind Vox that I believe that a mass deportation of the 60,000 African immigrants in Israel is not likely to happen. The government of Israel has willingly taken them into the country (if unlawfully) and now bears some responsibility for their welfare. Even the proposals of deportation floated by the Israeli government envisions giving the immigrants a stipend after deporting them.

While I’m sure we are all interested in Chelm’s ability to prognosticate, it would appear events have already overtaken his stated opinion, as Netanyahu has ordered the deportation of 25,000 of the 60,000 undocumented workers, or as the Israelis describe them, illegal infiltrators. “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his ministers to accelerate efforts to deport citizens of South Sudan, the Ivory Coast, Ghana and Ethiopia who are living in Israel illegally on Sunday.” Moreover, the other 35,000 are going to be installed in desert holding facilities, as Netanyahu “ordered a substantial expansion of the Saharonim lockup in the Negev.” For all that the Jews never seem to stop complaining about the Jewish ghettos of Europe, they can’t honestly say that they spent the entire Middle Ages jailed in the desert.

I take issue with his characterization of the deportations as non-violent. All deportation actions are by their very nature violent, in that the threat of violence is required to compel compliance with the deportation order. I assume he is using non-violent vs. violent as a proxy for the government exercising legitimate vs illegitimate authority… and that he believes that the massacres were illegitimate, while deportations were a legitimate exercise of the authority of state. If that is the case, he should have said so, because to characterize the deportations as non-violent fits a rhetorical pattern Vox has of minimizing and trivializing the impact of European persecution of the Jews and reveals to some extent his bias against them.

This is a red herring. First, the threat of violence is not the use of violence. Second, if all deportations are intrinsically violent, then obviously the Israeli deportations of the Africans are violent as well and there is no point in getting into the issue as it proves my assertion of equivalence. The reason that I was pointing out the non-violent nature of the historical Jewish deportations is because I was being careful to distinguish between them and the pogroms which were often very violent in nature. But Chelm is correct and I believe that the massacres were illegitimate – note that many of them were even illegal at the time, and some of them, such as the worst one in English history, brought down the wrath of the king on those who committed them – whereas the deportations were a legitimate exercise of the relevant authority then as now.

I will address the rest of his post tomorrow. However, Chelm may wish to note that his attempt to deny the historical parallels is being made increasingly difficult by the actions of the people in Israel.

“An apartment housing 10 Eritreans has been firebombed in Jerusalem, against the backdrop of rising anti-migrant sentiment in Israel. Four of the occupants were taken to hospital suffering burns and smoke inhalation. Graffiti sprayed on the walls of the building said: “Get out of the neighbourhood.” During a tour of the fence on Sunday, a member of the Israeli parliament said that troops should fire on anyone attempting to cross the border illegally. “Anyone that penetrates Israel’s border should be shot, a Swedish tourist, Sudanese from Eritrea, Eritreans from Sudan, Asians from Sinai. Whoever touches Israel’s border – shot,” said Aryeh Eldad.”

Neocon-occupied territory

You don’t have to take my word for it. Or Pat Buchanan’s, for that matter. That’s Bill Kristol’s position concerning the Republican Party and he’s proud of it:

“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel … .”

That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged. “At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”

“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed—really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”

Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.

Since I’m not a Republican, I’m not terribly concerned that it happens to be under the influence of big government neocons instead of big government pseudo-conservatives. It’s probably all for the better, in fact, as monomaniacal lunatics like Kristol will always overreach themselves and sow the seeds of their own destruction. It’s fairly apparent that the Republican Party has essentially become the Democratic Party of thirty years ago. But I think there are a lot of grass roots Republicans who would be surprised at the idea that both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan should be purged from the Republican Party in the name of an Israel Über Alles foreign policy.

Kristol’s crowing is a little ironic these days, as Jewish congressmen are beginning to learn that the third world immigrants they have championed in their effort to strengthen America through diversity and vibrancy tend to be unimpressed by boasts about how much money they have helped funnel to Israel. Given the demographic patterns, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the Israel lobby lose control of the Democrats even as they exercise greater influence over Republicans. Christians of European descent can be convinced to support Israel through Christian Zionism or Holocaust guilt, but it’s a little tougher to play those cards with atheists, Muslims, Africans, Hispanics, and Asians.

I wonder what Kristol’s reaction would be if the Republicans decided to expel him and other neocons like him instead?

The dilemma of a dynamic perspective

It would appear I’m hardly the only one to see the similarities between the rhetoric of the Israeli government and the behavior of the Jewish mob and the past rhetoric and behavior of other nations:

Last Thursday morning I woke up feeling more embarrassed for the state of Israel than almost ever before. Considering pogroms, racism (known in Israel almost exclusively as Anti-Semitism) and refugees are such central topics in Jewish history, collective memory and the Israeli education system, one would think that we would be the first to recognize such acts happening in our own backyard.

Apparently not.

Rather, it seems that the recent influx of migrants from Africa and their “taking over” of “our” cities has created a blind spot in our national conscious. Sadly, the riots in south Tel Aviv have demonstrated that nearly a century later, some of us are no better than our former European and Russian hosts who wanted nothing more than for us to leave their country.

Is it a blind spot or is it a newly clarified vision? Ironically, it would appear that I have less problem with Israelis who wish to maintain a Jewish state than some Jews. I do, however, take exception to those who actively oppose the idea of Israel or any other country being permitted to preserve its primary national identity by closing itself off to migrational waves, and American Jews are only a small, if vocal, percentage of a broad range of globalist multiculturalists who oppose that right. I have to give some credit to Feldman and others who would have Israel abide by the same principles that they insist other countries should obey, even though I think they are mistaken and that both the current Israelis are, and the historical non-Jewish nations were, operating fully within their rights to refuse to permit foreign nationals to dwell among them. That doesn’t justify pogroms or violence, of course, merely the peaceful deportation of foreigners to their former country or nation of origin.

On a related note, Chelm Wiseman has begun to respond to my first point, first with what he terms a primer on Jewish immigration views, followed by a post contemplating the four different types of residents and his perspective on a country’s responsibility to them. I don’t fully agree with his perspective, but it is far closer to mine than one might imagine, as he asserts “I believe that a sovereign state has the right to determine who resides within its borders, although that comes with some limitations.”

The devil, of course, being in the details of those limitations, which we shall no doubt discuss in future posts. However, I think the issue of the observed Jewish hypocrisy on the issue of immigration is quite easily explained, and without resorting to any bizarre collectivist theories. The fact of the matter is that until very recently, the Jewish perspective on immigration was entirely shaped by their 2,000-year experience as migrants, with no sense of ownership in a geographically established location or even a viable, self-sustaining society to call their own. Now finally they’ve got one again, so naturally, their perspective has begun changing in precisely the same way that a worker promoted into management has no choice but to begin to understand that the past decisions of management are not necessarily based in pure evil, avarice, and hatred for the working class, but are much more often the necessary consequences of events.

Of course, this process of promotion-based perspective-broadening is often intellectually painful, as it usually involves giving up long cherished myths, some of which have sustained the worker and perhaps even driven him to the success that led to his promotion. One would hope that the Jews of Israel can learn from the mistakes of those who historically sought to defend their nations from the influence of unwanted foreigners even as they begin to understand the reasoning of those who deported their ancestors long ago. There will always be some who hate Jews for one reason or another, but I suspect many Israelis, especially those in positions of responsibility for the continued survival of their country, will soon understand, assuming they do not already, that most of the nations that expelled their ancestors harbored no more intrinsic hate for the Jews than modern Israelis harbor intrinsic hate for the Sudanese now in their midst. A desire to live among one’s own kind and protect one’s own people from dissolution and eventual destruction by foreign influences is not hate, but rather love. It is love for one’s people, and love for their culture, language, and traditions. This is a concept that Jews should understand and respect as well as anyone.

Don’t they know diversity is strength?

It should be fascinating to see how the “conservative” Jewish columnists who have long advocated open borders in America react to this immigration-related news out of Israel:

Illegal infiltrators threaten Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic country, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. Calling the issue “very grave” and a threat to the “social fabric,” Netanyahu said, “If we do not stop the entry, the problem, there are now 60,000 illegal infiltrators; could easily grow to 600,000 illegal infiltrators. This would inundate the state and, to a considerable degree, cancel out its image as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The prime minister spoke of the importance of finishing construction of the Egyptian border fence and working to send away “those [illegal migrants] who are already inside.”

Netanyahu said the latter will be done in part by punishing employers who hire illegal migrants….

Also on Sunday, Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) repeated his call to jail illegal African migrants, most of whom he said were involved in crime. “I repeat what I said – we must jail all of them or deport them with a stipend. The moment they are put in jail – others won’t want to come here anymore,” Yishai said, in an interview with Army Radio.

Now, I support Netanyahu’s position, and Yishai’s as well. I support it for Israel, I support it for the USA, and I also support it for the nations of Eastern and Western Europe. And for every other nation on the planet as well. Multiculturalism is not merely a failure, but a lie. So I should be very interested to hear how avid immigration advocates such as Jon Podhoretz, whose advocacy of open immigration is overtly and explicitly based on his Jewishness, explain the dichotomy between Netanyahu’s position and their own. Podhoretz once said: “[A]s a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in.”

But why should the United States not have been any more unwilling to take Jews in than the Jews are to take in Africans? Given that some Jews are still more than willing to whine about having been deported from Spain more than 500 freaking years ago, it seems more than a little ironic that the current leaders of the Jewish state should now claim the right to deport non-Jews from their own country. If the Jewish people want to claim some sort of human right to immigrate into every country in the world, then they have absolutely no grounds for deporting 60,000 African immigrants, or 600,000, for that matter. I already know how at least one of our resident Israelis will answer, since we are of the same opinion on this issue, but I’m interested to hear what Chelm and other Jewish readers have to say about these statements by the Israeli government. Do they believe Netanyahu and Yishai are wrong, do they believe the historical expellers of the Jews were justified to expel them, or do they believe in one law for themselves and another for non-Jews?

It seems to me that if Israel is justified in deporting these African immigrants, that action will provide a powerful ex post facto justification for the many non-violent historical deportations of the Jewish people from European countries during the medieval period. I am, of course, distinguishing these non-violent deportations from the historical massacres that took place from time to time during the same historical epoch, especially in Germany and Russia, which cannot be justified regardless of what the current Israeli government ends up doing. It will also offer similar ex post facto justification for the more recent expulsion of Jews from the Arab nations. One also wonders how an excess of Africans can be said to threaten Israel’s existence as a democratic state.

Now, it seems likely that Chelm will consider this post to be “dangerous”, in the sense that he describes in his post entitled The Dangerous Nature of the Alternative Right. That’s his call, of course, but I find his assertion that doing nothing more than pointing out incontrovertible facts and asking the questions they obviously raise is tantamount to “attempting to put together an intellectually, socially palatable basis for a more modern brand of anti-semitism” to be more than a little dubious.

After all, if it’s so easy to put together a sound and popular basis for a new anti-semitism, doesn’t that tend to suggest that any such anti-semitism must be based on grounds much more solid and justifiable than irrational hatred? What Chelm can’t seem to understand is that if one can “undermine Israel” by simply observing what Israel is undeniably doing, it isn’t the observer who is doing the undermining. Nor does he appear to grasp that when a person insists genuinely neutral people are not only lying about their lack of interest in him, but are in fact his secret enemy, his paranoid assertion is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy over time. You can only attack people for so long before they get tired of your antics and start to find you irritating. And this is as true of groups as it is of individuals.

As I have previously noted, some Jews appear to be determined to create enemies where none previously existed. And while it’s certainly a profitable strategy for the likes of Abe Foxman and the Southern Poverty Law Center, I would suggest that it is a ludicrously suboptimal survival strategy for a group that currently represents around 0.3 percent of the global population.

As to Chelm’s defense of referring to various non-Jews as Amalekites, I note the following from Wikipedia: “Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3.” Now, perhaps he’s not an Orthodox Jew and was simply using the term as colorful rhetoric, but it is simply ridiculous to attempt to somehow turn this around and claim that I am engaging in any sort of psychological projection by noting that the label, at the very least, potentially implies violence.