Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.
I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.
I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.
I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.
It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.
I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.
As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.
Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.
So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.
An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.
An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.
(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.
(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.
Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.
In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”
(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.
(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.
(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.
(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.
(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.
(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.
However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.
(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.
(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Bay Area and the Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism

Here.

Robert Stark talks to Bay Area-based blogger  Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

Robert Stark’s recent trip to San Francisco where he met up with Bay Area Guy at Union Square.
The Bay Area as a microcosm of American Society and how it combines both the best and worst of what America has to offer.
How the Bay Area represents American capitalism at its fullest.
How SF Is the second most unequal major city in America.
How despite it’s wealth and gentrification, SF has preserved much of the historic character of the City.
How the Bay Area has done a better job at wilderness conservation than Southern California.
The Racial Dynamics of the Bay Area..
San Francisco and The Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox.
How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice.
How the elites are Social Darwinists who pose as progressive humanitarians.
Andy Nowicki’s article The Patrick Bateman Right.
His thoughts on Donald Trump and why he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for President.
How the political ideal would be to combine the best aspects of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
His article The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism.
How the Left uses the language of American Exceptionalism to justify open borders and Cultural Leftism.
How America is exceptional at obesity, anti-intellectualism, and income income inequality.
How The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
Mark Ames’ Going Postal.

New Interview with Me Up

Warning! This interview is definitely NSFW! A lot of discussion of explicit sex acts in this interview, so be warned!

Here.

Robert Stark Interviews Robert Lindsay About the Alternative Left, Immigration & Cultural Leftist Insanity

Topics include:

Topics include:
Proposal for an Alternative Left
Robert Lindsay as the Left Wing of the Alternative Right
Why it’s hard to be politically homeless in American politics
How the Establishment Left is a fusion of neoliberal capitalism and cultural leftism
Why Robert Lindsay rejects the term “Cultural Marxism”
The Alternative Left’s stance on immigration, trade, the environment, and social issues.
The corporate push for open borders and the Mainstream Left’s collusion
The Progressive Case for Reducing Immigration
Progressive UC Davis Prof Endorses Trump Immigration Plan
Donald Trump’s stances on immigration and trade
When It Comes To Sex, Nothing Is Too Perverted for the Cultural Left
How society has become more degenerate in general while at the same time becoming puritanical about certain issues

"Illegals Turning Our Towns into Cesspools"

From here.
This is an article from a rightwing blog. All of the commenters are also rightwingers. But you don’t need to be a rightwinger to figure out that illegal aliens and their offspring ruin towns and cities. That is obvious to any Californian.
The problem with attacking illegals is that the Hispanics and the rest of the liberals always say, “You are not attacking illegals! You are really attacking Hispanics!”
This is a most interesting question that needs to be addressed head-on. Is it true that the illegals are only a problem in that they are Hispanics, and when we say illegals are no good, we are really saying that Hispanics are no good? It is quite an accusation, and I have to think deeply about whether or not it is true. The truth is that Hispanic legal immigrants have not caused a lot of problems in the US.
If you live in California, you can rapidly figure out that the problem is the illegals and not the legal Hispanics. Why is that? Because the illegals are particularly low quality immigrants. These are the peasants, the working class and the lumpen proletariat of Mexico. Say what you want about them, but they are basically pretty low quality people. Maybe they are just fine for Mexico; after all, folks like this form the backbone of Mexican society. Then again, Mexican society is pretty much of a mess, and it is these folks who have arguably created that mess. But it is not our responsibility to attack or fix Mexican society. That is an issue for the Mexicans themselves.
The problem is that the base of Mexican society simply does not provide high quality immigrants for the USA, a 1st World Country. The base of Mexico will simply tend to create Mexico in its dregs version, and that is exactly what they do.
Even if the 1st generation of illegals are pretty much hardworking folks, their children are another matter altogether. It is common knowledge here in California that the gangsters are the children of the illegals and not the illegals themselves. This is pretty much true, and I can attest to that firsthand as I got to know a number of gangbangers who live around me. In fact, for a while, a lot of them were hanging out over here.
Illegals and their descendants will tend to trash a town once they get to a majority. Going from a White town to a majority illegals + anchor babies town is, all other things aside, a downgrade. It is not as much of a downgrade as going from a White town to a ghetto Black town, but it is still a noticeable downgrade. I live in such a city now, and while it is relatively safe, there is a certain amount of petty theft, and I have had some items ripped off. The grand total over 5 years comes to ~$360. That is about $70/year. It’s pretty much nickel and dime stuff, but it is still annoying. This is not a ruined of unlivable city so much as a downgraded one.
Another lie is that the illegals come from all over and not just Mexico. Actually, ~85% of illegals come from Mexico and many of the rest come from Central America. The illegal alien problem is a problem of illegal, low quality Mesoamerican immigrants. There are some other nationalities that contribute some illegals, but they don’t add up to a large number and in general they are not causing significant problems, so they are not important.
A very large number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans here in California support the illegal aliens. So the illegal issue is really all about Mexican nationalism. It’s all about the La Raza, the race, the people. White people can’t be ethnocentric, but when Mexicans do it, it’s the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Mexican ethnocentrism is no less atavistic or reactionary than any other kind of ethnocentrism.
We really need to get clear on what the Mexicans and Mexican Americans want. What they want is an open border with Mexico for Mexicans to cross in as large of numbers as they wish. That’s what this whole illegal alien argument is all about. Mexicans don’t care about immigrants from any other country; they only care about La Raza.
The current outrage of an amnesty bill in Congress will legalize 11 million illegal aliens. However, with family reunification, it will eventually bring in 30 million more Mexicans very quickly. The vast majority of those 30 million will be low quality immigrants, the lower classes of Mexico. They will come up here and degrade and debase our communities the same as the ones before.
The argument is that we will legalize these 11 million (or 30 million) and then we will seal the border and not let any new ones in. But that’s not how it works here. We have done amnesties before. After each amnesty, they say they are going to seal the border. They never do it. It’s probably not even sealable anyway. Illegals will pour across the border into the foreseeable future. But we won’t let any new ones in! This won’t work either. The demands of the Mexican Lobby in the US are that once an illegal makes it across the border, he’s home free and we have no right to detain him and repatriate him.
The Mexican Lobby has the following demands:

  1. Legalize all illegals and let them bring relatives in.
  2. Do not seal the border, in fact, don’t even police it at all.
  3. Do not repatriate any new illegals who come across.

The problem is that after we legalize the 11 million, since we won’t seal the border (can’t be done) and we won’t detain or return many new illegals because the Mexicans throw a screaming fit whenever we do, very quickly, a huge new pool of millions of new illegals will build up in the US. Soon this pool will swell and there will be demands for another amnesty. This will keep going on into the foreseeable future in sort of an endless repetition.
The troubling issue is that both parties are now apparently captive to the Mexican Lobby in the US (the so-called Hispanic vote). Once you are a prisoner of the Mexican Lobby, you are committed to the three steps above. Eventually we will end up being a northern version of Mexico, with all of its attendant problems.
The following headline and news extract for the Selma (California) Enterprise appeared on this week’s edition of my old hometown paper. Note all of the little neighboring cities are also suffering from the explosive crime rate.

Selma’s Crime Rate Highest in County

By Doug Hoagland
dhoagland@selmaenterprise.com

Of all the cities in Fresno County, Selma ranked first in crime during 2010. At least that’s what one measuring stick used by the FBI shows. Citizens, city council members and police in Selma have been talking for months about a rise in crime. Some might see the FBI statistics as confirmation of an alarming trend in the city. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report — which comes out every year — shows that Selma had the highest crime rate per 100,000 population in 2010. Fresno was second, Kerman was third, Sanger was fourth and Parlier was fifth — rounding out the Top Five.
The list then goes: Mendota, Kingsburg, Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Fowler and Huron. Figures were not available for Orange Cove and San Joaquin.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
When one reads the rest of the crime report article, the Selma Chief of Police is asked to cite the cause for the crime rate. He responds: “I really don’t know”.
“I really don’t know”…..that response says so much about how California has capitulated to a degree of political correctness, derived from the realization that illegal immigrant invaders have saturated the entire state of California…..to the extent that is now impossible for a public official to utter the truth about the causative factors for soaring crime rates throughout the state. This state of denial is compounded by the need for public officials to continue coddling Hispanics “legalized through past amnesties” who support the illegal invasion as some misguided effort to boost Hispanic political power.
This, despite the fact that they are all fowling the cesspool in which they live. Most of the white and black contingent of “legal” residents are now cowards; too fearful to speak out less they offend a Hispanic acquaintance. Fair enough: let them dwell in the squalor of illegal infestation. They have earned it. They have become so blinded to it that they don’t realize that a high quality of life exists elsewhere. Being cowards, they have adopted the practice of looking the other way at the graffiti, the gang activity, the soaring crime, the degradation of their children’s schools.
Three decades ago, before past amnesties opened the flood gates to illegal criminals, all of the farming communities mentioned in this report were thriving small towns with low crime rates and an extremely pleasing quality of life. Now, every single one of these once fine little towns are cesspools of crime, infested with drug smugglers, anchor baby welfare trolls, where decent people can no longer walk the streets at night. According to the latest census report Selma is, like most of California’s invaded cities, 78 percent Hispanic….and likely half of them illegal.
Also cited in this same report is the tragic fact that the local jails are so full these criminals must be turned out early to make way for the next fresh batch of arrestees. The Chief of Police lamented the fact that the “criminal early out” program allows the newly released criminals to go out and commit more crime.
During my entire 22-year Air Force career I always dreamed of retiring to my sedate and peaceful little town where I grew up. Then I came home, took a look around, saw the gangsters and the prolific graffiti that graces every street in town and decided to dwell elsewhere.
California is now a lost cause. It’s citizens have neither the will nor the backbone to drive the illegals out. For those of you who feel your town is immune from the ravages of illegal immigration, think again.
Illegals are spreading across the U.S. in unprecedented numbers now. You have a chance to stop it before you are infested.
The choice is yours. Write your Senators and Congressman and the President and tell them you oppose illegal immigration in any form. Stand strong against it…or be prepared to live in a cesspool.

Mexicans Belong in Mexico

The illegal ones, anyway.
The legal resident alien green card holders can stay. The Mexican-Americans obviously can stay. Is that radical, arrogant or racist? Fine, call me names. Scream and yell.
Let’s look at some other arguments:
Argentinians belong in Argentina. Haitians belong in Haiti. Russians belong in Russia. Chinese belong in China. Indians belong in India. The illegal ones, anyway. If they want to jump through the hoops and become resident aliens and from there citizens, all the power to them. It may take 15 years.
Presidente Jorge Boosh wants to give illegals one day to automagically turn into some kind of Z-card legal citizens. What a slap in the face to all the green card holders, legal immigrants and others who spent so much money, filled out so many forms, and waited so long to secure their dream.
Why would anyone do it the legal way ever again when they can just go illegal and do it on the easy and cheap?
Suppose we had 12 million Argentines, or Chileans, or Indonesians, or Costa Ricans, or Uruguayans, or Dominicans, or Albanians, or Egyptians, or Angolans, or Bangladeshis, or Nepalis, or Laotians, or New Guineans, all illegals, invading our shores? Would it make any difference? Regardless of their plights, they belong in their own countries.
If their reactionary, nightmare, third world rat holes suck, well, then, they need to make revolution there, hopefully peaceful revolution. In some cases, maybe with the gun. That’s the Leftist in me talking.
Name one Communist country that insanely opened its borders to anyone who wanted to invade in order to crush the working class of their own land. There never was one. Marxist rulers were not stupid. They defended their borders and their workers.
Why do their lunatic acolytes believe in the insanity of “open borders”, with its massive security risks and attendant ruination of the American working class?
“But people are so desperate in Mexico”…Wa wa wa. Yes! People are desperate, starving and living in horrible conditions the world over. Why single out Mexicans? If desperate Mexicans get a free get out of jail pass to invade America, why not open up our borders to the miserable of the entire Third World, many of whom are far worse off than the average Mexican?
“But the Mexicans have children!” Hell, everyone has children. All over the world, people have kids. No kidding! So everyone who has kids, and I guess is desperate too, gets to invade America and drive our wages into the gutter forever. Surveys show that about 1/2 to 1/3 of the population would come to the US if they had the chance. That is 2-3 billion human beings.
This is what the lunatic Left and cheap labor Right in the open borders Lobby wants. Can you imagine? After that 2 billion man march on America occurs, America will be Calcutta writ large. And we can sign the death warrant on our republic, too.
The vast majority of nations in the world do not allow visiting or residing Americans, or anyone else I guess, to work, as long as you are living in or visiting the country. Why? They are leaving those positions open for their own people. The Open Borders loons would say that virtually every country on Earth, then, is racist, for not letting foreigners work in the land.
Even if that is racist (let is play games for a moment) is that really such a bad thing? And if the vast majority of nations are viciously racist, does the word mean anything anymore?
Many nations make it quite hard to become a citizen. The Arab World is notorious for this. The Koreans and Japanese have decided that the future residents of their land should be overwhelmingly Koreans and Japanese. And they are not the only ones. This is very common the world over.
Where is the Open Borders crowd? Why are they not screaming at the Arabs, Koreans and Japanese for being horrible racists? How dare these nations exercise sovereignty over the question of citizenship in their lands!
After all, the only way to be nonracist is to open your borders to any army of invaders that wants to invade, to grant the invaders citizenship on demand when they arrogantly demand it, and to let them steal every job they can from your citizens. Now that we know hat it takes to be a “racist” and a “nonracist”, “racism” is starting to look like sanity, eh? (Being sarcastic here).

Is the Anti-Illegal Immigrant Movement Racist?

Repost from the old site.
It’s actually a trick question. Some of members of the anti-immigration movement are racists. Racists always join any movement critical of immigration. So what? This entire argument rests on a fallacious assumption. That the presence of one group in a movement means that all of the other members of the movement share the feelings of that one group.
It’s a well-known logical fallacy called guilt by association. It’s very important to become aware of all of the logical fallacies out there, because people are always using these BS arguments to try to convince you of this or that. Fact is, if you change your mind due to a logical fallacy, you are being fooled. If you do so knowingly, you are a fool. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you are either ignorant or a knowing liar.
“Guilt by association” is widely used and manages to convince hundreds of millions of fools of this or that every year the world over.
Yet, just because I associate with someone, or anyone, does not mean that I share any, all or some of their views.
Some of the kids in my apartment complex I associate with claim to be Hispanic gang members. A Black guy I know here wears a stocking over his head, gangster-style. One of the Chicano guys I was drinking with at the bar the other night looked like he just got out of prison and had a shirt on with an apparent gang logo.
I’m also friends with a guy who is a White Supremacist racist, with the usual Nazi sympathies. He pretty much refuses to speak with anyone who is not White, especially Blacks and Browns. I don’t agree with him, but I’m not going to dissociate with him.
I have friends who are rightwing Republicans and others who are leftwing Democrats and a few who are Communists.
To say that I agree with all of these people would be impossible, as they all hold contradictory views.
Militant Jews are some of the world’s leading experts in devious argumentation, including logical fallacy, lawyerese, sophistry, prevarication and basically the art of verbal BS. I guess that is why there are so many Jewish lawyers? I learned this while doing combat with them in the Mideast groups on Usenet. One of the Jews’ favorite tactics was guilt by association.
If one voiced any sympathy for any Palestinian or Arab group, some obscure terroristic or anti-Semitic incident done by that group was dredged up and you were immediately associated with it and accused of homicidal anti-Semitism. There were also fascist White Supremacists in those groups, and a lot of us were cordial with them. Why not? The Jews were smashing us right and left, so why make more enemies?
The Jews deviously used our cordiality with these bad guys as prima facie evidence that we agreed with Nazism, and therefore were Nazis. As usual, no amount of our protestations of innocence were accepted. I wonder whether these Jews believed their fallacies or if they were deliberately lying about us.
The tactics that these Jews used were, of course, not particular to Jews, but Jews do seem to do this better than anyone else. That’s not necessarily a slam. There is an art to verbal sparring, even the blatantly dishonest kind. After all, sleazy politics makes the world go round, the sleaziest pol wins the cake, and “attorney” is the name of a well-paid profession.
I have seen other groups use these same tactics. Logical fallacies are favorites of other nationalists, not just Jewish nationalists. Turkish nationalists are getting pretty good at aping their Jewish cohorts. Arab nationalists, who mostly hate Jews, act a lot like them in these regards.
After a while, you realize that all nationalists and ultranationalists are speaking the same language, even though most of them hate each others’ guts.
Logical fallacies are also commonly used by conservatives, especially the more hardline types, and I have seen them used by some Marxists. If we call ultranationalism and the Far Left and Right species of fanaticism, we can start to see sleazy argumentation and reliance on logical fallacy as simply markers of general fanaticism and emotional argumentation, and, frankly, the argument of the man who lacks one.
Which leads us to the anti-illegal immigration movement. The fact is, a large majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration, often ferociously so. Surveys show that 75-80% of Americans are against illegal immigration, and they seem more and more angry about it.
In other words, opposing illegal immigration is normal, reasonable American politics. It’s not fanatical or racist or anything like that, unless one wants to make the crazy claim that 80% of Americans are raving racists.
This gives the lie to the open borders crazies’ notion that the anti-illegal immigration movement represents only a small “anti-immigrant” minority. According to them, the rest of us are supposedly open borders nuts like them.
The issue is complicated by polling questions and the actual views of Americans. Polls show that up to 65% or so of Americans support some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals already here.
On the other hand, Americans in these same polls think it is important to lock down the border.
The open borders loons want a completely open border, not just in the South but apparently everywhere. In their insane plan, every single “immigrant”, or now, “migrant” (the words keep changing as they become stigmatized) who strolls across the border gets automatic US citizenship, apparently without any background checks or anything unpleasant like that.
Surely only a small minority of Americans favor such an insane program. The open borders liars conflate Americans’ cynicism about the possibility of deporting 20 million illegals (hence some sort of “legalize them” solution) with implied support for illegal immigrants and open borders, ignoring the nation’s fervent desire to lock down the Southern border as much as possible.
Sure the movement has racists in it, but any rational person knows that the vast majority of those opposing illegal immigration are not profoundly racist people, and if one is opposed to illegal immigration, one is keeping company with 75-80% of the population, including, surely, sadly, but inevitably, some nasty racists.

Why Jews Support Open Borders

There are some comments suggesting that Jews support Open Borders for less than ulterior motives. One suggestion was that Jews supported Open Borders in order to get Hispanics on board with pro-Israel sentiment. Another suggestion was that Jews made an agreement to support the Black Agenda if Blacks would ease up on South Africa, an Israeli ally.

First of all, Jews are going to support the Black agenda anyway, so there’s no need for an agreement. Second of all, this deal did not work very well because Blacks kept hammering away at South Africa nevertheless.

Sure, Jews are basically looking out for their own. Of course they are.

But that doesn’t explain Jewish liberalism very much. Jewish liberalism is deep and heartfelt and frankly goes against their economic self-interest as wealthy people. It’s probably a holdover from the early days when the Jews first came here and they were poor and often Leftist. Then there is the Reform notion of Tikkun Olam, making the world a better place. Jews have been heavily involved in many or most of the progressive projects in the past century. Most Jews think that’s pretty cool. Why were they doing that? Maybe Tikkun Olam.

The Right has been anti-Semitic for a long time, at least a century or more in Europe and in the US.

Before that, Napoleon was a progressive who tried to overthrow conservative monarchies in Europe in the name of a progressive project, almost a Woodrow Wilson or neoconservative before his time. He also liberated the Jews. This may have begun the love affair between progressives and the Jews. In other words, Jewish liberalism or Leftism may have begun with Napoleon.

US conservatism was anti-Semitic for most of this century. It was only with the Reagan Revolution and the New Right headquartered in Orange County, California, that the Right began to move away from that. The Birchers also turned away from anti-Semitism after a bit.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party is very racist, mostly against Blacks and to a lesser extent against Hispanics. Jews see that and worry. Most Jews figure that a White who hates Blacks or maybe Hispanics probably doesn’t like Jews very much either. It’s a form of paranoia, but it’s based on reality.

Further, the Republican Party is insanely Christian fundamentalist. Jews don’t think too much of Christianity period for historical reasons. And they really don’t like these fundie Christians one bit. These fundies are like Christians on steroids, and most liberal Jews do not like them or trust them.

We have not talked enough on here about the sociology of political expression. Jews grow up in a liberal environment, so they turn into liberals.

In my previous post, I noted a number of towns I had lived in and how it seemed that every White person in the towns was a conservative Republican. I never was, but frankly that was not an easy position for me to take, and I suffered a lot for it. The peer pressure to go along with the crowd is extreme in White communities, and I think this is one reason so many Whites go Republican. They are simply doing what everyone else is doing.

We see this with conservatism in Texas, Arizona, the mountain West, the Ozarks, the South and Appalachia. I’ve known conservative Whites from these areas, and I often felt that they got into that politics because that was what everyone else was doing. Most didn’t seem to have a logical reason for being reactionaries.

What’s going on here is that liberal Jews like the Jewish organizations think that anti-immigrant sentiment is bad for the Jews. They were all immigrants not too long ago. And they know that anti-immigrant sentiment leads to nativism, which turns to racism, which turns to racist nationalism or racist ethnonationalism, which has a tendency historically to turn on the Jews as not real Sneeds of Sneedland or whatever.

Also, most of these organizations are made up of liberal Jews, and if you are a Democratic Party liberal, I know this from experience, it is utterly mandatory that you get on board with the Open Borders thing. If you don’t, you are shunned and ultimately banned from forums or cast out of party circles in one way or another. The Democratic Party and liberalism has a number of issues on which you are not allowed to dissent, and Open Borders is one of them.

On the Non-persistance of Any Jewish Agenda

Repost from the old site.
In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the “Jews are bad for Whites” thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z’s an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.
He’s a soft White nationalist, but he’s for Blacks. I think this is healthy.
If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you’re ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I’m for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I’m proud of my ancestors. That’s normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?
Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn’t necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?
Z writes:

Though I read it often, I’m not a huge fan of American Renaissance because of the blatant and over-the-top anti-Black/African stance of the commenters there, and also because they totally ignore/censor articles, posts, and discussion regarding the Jewish Question.
Obviously though, AmRen is fully correct when it comes to the current mass-immigration issue.
Anyhow, being anti-Black is bottom of the barrel racism in my opinion, too easy, too simple-minded…too desperate, too low.
I am from the South so perhaps I am more sympathetic to the plight of African Americans than most White Americans because I grew up amongst them, went to school with them, played sports with them, and have seen the poverty/degradation/ignorance in which many of them unfortunately live.
And just to say: a system of local agrarian socialism would be an excellent system in helping many African Americans become more communally sufficient, because many Blacks in America are still very rural and they actually own a lot of good agricultural land too in America nowadays.
In my opinion though, if one wants to understand the real cancer eating away at White/Euro cultures, one must confront the Jews. Jews have done more damage and will continue to do more damage to White/European majority societies than Blacks ever did or will do.
In fact, Jews were in many ways central to the slave trade which brought hordes of African slaves on to American shores over the centuries (I intend to eventually post about this on my blog when I become more active on there).
Damn, Jews have been promoting ‘multiculturalism’ for a long damn time, haven’t they?

I respond: I don’t think it makes sense to blame the whole slave trade on the Jews. That’s not rational.
My problem with the whole “Jews are the enemy of our race” thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They’re just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers – White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby – the Whites in it are Gentiles.
I have another problem with this – if it’s so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don’t ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?
Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They’re for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little “deconstruction”.
I know a White Gentile who does this right now – he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it’s about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I’m thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.
Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I’m not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.
It’s true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920’s.
The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.
Jews just promote what’s good for the Jews, that’s all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.
No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he’s down. Talk about an easy target.
The Jews are relatively amoral on their project – there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there’s no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, “Is it good for the Jews?”.

100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican

Repost from the old site.

If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.

I’ve made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I’ve never met one, and I’ve never seen one anywhere on the Net.

The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.

In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.

James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.

Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can’t get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It’s true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it’s being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that’s apparently legal.

The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.

The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.

Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes – they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.

Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It’s a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.

*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to “heighten the contradictions” in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will “wake up the sleeping Whites” to the White racist cause.

The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.

I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to “shake things out”. I was appalled. I really don’t think it’s ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.

The Multicultural Curriculum at California Universities

A friend of mine is at university now in California. He has to take some BS called the Multicultural Curriculum. It’s a requirement. They might as well call it the White People Are Evil Curriculum. It’s really stupid.

My friend is the only ethnocentric White in his classes. The other Whites are all self-hating idiots. He met one White guy who was going to join the Brown Berets (Hispanic fascists).

Many of the Whites are Armenians, and to a person, they refuse to identify as Whites. They are Armenians, not Whites, and are also rather White-hostile.

The Hispanics are really militant and all have a major grudge against Whitey. Some of the Hispanics are highly agitated and militant, almost revolutionary. The spark of their glorious revolutionary flame? Illegal aliens! The Hispanics are not very good students, and many of them drop out, but they are better students than the Blacks.

There are Blacks in the classes too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff for some reason. In general, they don’t even go to class. Most of them are gone before the class is over, having dropped the class or dropped out of school. It seems it’s not so much that they are dumb but more that they just are not interested in class. The smarter Blacks are the females, but some of them are also mouthy, argumentative, ignorant and won’t take no for an answer. They also have a “Let’s wing it,” slacker type attitude.

There are a lot of Asians too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff. They are excellent students, and a lot of them are females.

The teachers are generally Jews or non-Whites like Asians or East Indians. They’ve all got a grudge against Whites. He had a Chinese professor who went on and on about the Chinese Exclusion Act as if it were the crime of the century.

The Jewish teachers are some of the worst White-haters of them all. I never cared much about this type of Jew, but I developed an intense dislike of one Jewish sociology professor my friend had just based on his tales of the guy. There can be no doubt about it – this guy is simply an enemy of me and my people. The professor was absolutely animated with anti-White animus. It’s what he was all about.

The professors all promote some weird garbage “Leftism” that is a mixture of globalization with a strong neoliberal and pro-corporate slant on economics (endless praise of “free markets”), and pro-greed consumerist bourgeois ethic, combined with Open Borders for the West –  unlimited immigration of “good” Third Worlders to the “evil” West. It’s basically “free markets and open borders.”

I fail to see anything even slightly progressive about this project.

National Bolshevik Blog

Maury2K’s blog.

Worth a look. I hate to say it, but this is somewhat up my alley. I don’t like NB’s at all. They’re a bunch of racist and ultranationalist expansionist shits. Nonetheless, this Maury2K guy is one of the most reasonable I have found yet.* Good articles on how the Western Left has mega-fucked up.

I will vote Republican only over my dead body. You will literally have to kill me first. I can’t imagine any situation in which I would vote Republican. Bottom line is I end up voting Dem most of the time. Sometimes I vote Left, like Green or Socialist, just as a protest vote, if I think the election is a done deal.

Even though these National Bolsheviks are racist fucks, they are socialists and on the Left, and I would much rather ally with them than with these traitor invite the world, invade the world Democrats. The Western Left is hopeless and frankly, pure evil. It’s 100% Open Borders. In my part of the US, them’s fighting words.

Politics is the art of compromise, as my late father used to say. Your allies are typically the lesser of two evils.

*I have some worries on this site, such as his position on civil rights and what looks like some anti-Semitism, but I’ll swallow that pill over the Western Left Open Borders White race traitor horse pill any day.

The White Race Traitor Left in the US

A reasonable progressive commenter from the UK, the brilliant and reincarnated Abiezer Coppe, is stunned by the insanity of the US Left, as exemplified in the Red Flag for White Bulls post:

More weirdness from the US of A. How anyone can take this stuff seriously! Is Race Traitor aligned with any…uh…social movement as we understand it? Or is it highly marginal like White nationalism?

I am not sure how big this movement really is in US culture. It seems a lot bigger than it is because it is so huge in academia and on the Left. But most Americans laugh at academia and the Left. You won’t find much of this talk in the mainstream US press, though it is starting to gain followers among anti-racist Blacks (like here), Hispanics and Asians (most of whom simply have a racial grudge against Whites, and are not really progressive in any other way). You’ll never see views like this in the US mainstream media, not yet anyway.

But! The entire Western Left is into this crap! Retarded or what? As a logical consequence, I have known White Leftist workers who despise the US Left as anti-White and “only cares about the Blacks and the Mexicans.” I joined the Communist Party USA a while back and told them about a friend who was also a Communist. The CPUSA very much wanted to give him a membership, but when I asked him, he refused to be associated with them, as he saw them as “anti-White worker.”

The Left in the US is simply insane, and they have completely blown off (and blown it with) the US White working class.

Also there is a large but not really Left* “Cultural Marxist” movement in the US which buys into this nonsense. A lot of them are not Left at all on economics, instead they are moneyed bourgeois, Blacks, Hispanics or even Whites (often Jewish), who promote this anti-White crap for a variety of reasons. The Black and Hispanic bourgeois, while rightwing and pro-elite on economic matters, wants to stick it to Whitey for racial reasons. I should make alliances with these rightwingers why now?

There are sectors of the White “Left” in the US now that have abandoned economics altogether. The article above exemplifies the only way that they are “Left” at all anymore. Stick it to Whitey Left. They combine the nutty anti-racism above with, of all things, neoliberal economics! They support multiculturalism, fuck-Whitey anti-racism, worship of everything non-White, Open Borders in White countries, and neoliberal economics! What that is called, I don’t know. Smells like Shit Stew!

In some ways, they are a faction of the “rootless cosmopolitan” internationalist pro-multinational corporation neoliberal elite which is loyal to no land and knows no borders. This is the Screw Whitey “progressive” branch of that elite. They share with the rest the neoliberal economics, the support for Open Borders in White lands and the support for multiculturalism (really multinational corporate McWorld).

*Commenter (and great writer) Lafayette Sennacherib says these folks are not Left since they are rightwing on economics. As he notes, when you take economics out of the Left, nothing remains. You’re not on the Left anymore. I concur, and Saint Karl in Heaven surely agrees. Therefore, this weird Cultural Marxist-neoliberalism stuff is not any kind of Left politics at all. What it is, and whether it is liberal, Centrist or Right, I have no idea.

Why Do People Support Illegal Immigration?

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy lays out some typical arguments for why people support illegals. I feel he is wrong in some of his arguments:

Leftists want illegal immigrants for future votes, and also in order to weaken whites and lend further legitimacy to their anti-racist arguments (ie. I frequently hear Tim Wise type anti-racists say, “as the U.S becomes more ‘of color’ we’ll need to make serious changes”).After all, the more non-white the U.S becomes, the more you have to enact policies that help them, right?

Neocons and conservatives want illegals for cheap labor.

The key is to go after employers and leftist elites who tolerate this crap.

I have a hard time with this argument, BAG. It’s typical to say that the Left wants all these illegals in order to weaken US Whites. Is there any evidence for this? I don’t see any.

Keep in mind that I was on the Left for many years. I have met and talked to Leftist Presidential candidates on the phone and in person. I am a member of the Communist Party USA and I have spoken to top ranking members. I have met with local Communists in a local Commie group. Suffice to say I have been around the Left for 20 years. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, including a Jewish media multimillionaire. Never once have I heard a Leftist or Jew say that we need to import all of these illegals in order to weaken US Whites.

Why do people support the illegals? Mostly they are ideologues who believe in Open Borders, though they often do not say so. They believe in “the right to migrate.”

For the Hispanics, it’s obvious. Their relatives and friends are a bunch of wetbacks, and if not, they are loyal to La Raza.

I doubt if many average working class Hispanics support illegals so they can flood into the US take over whole parts of it for the Hispanics. Your average Hispanic simply does not conceive things in those terms. The only people who talk like that are upper middle class bourgeois Hispanics with a university education. Some Latino politicians talk like this too, but they just want to get re-elected. Your average Chicano cares zero about Aztlan, and if you polled them, they probably don’t even know what Aztlan is.

Your average Chicano is not an idiot, and Mexico and the rest of Latin America is full of White people. So “Whites” can easily be “Latinos.” All we have to do is speak Spanish and adopt Latino culture. Since your average Hispanic comes from a a region with over 100 million Whites, they don’t see Whites per se as the enemy. Gringos, maybe. Whites? No way. They don’t think in racial terms since they themselves are not a race.

Around here, you will see Chicanos ranging all the way from full White through myriad shades of mestizo all the way to pure Indian. They all hang out with each other, and no one thinks anything of it. If I spoke Spanish fluently, I could join them and be one of the “White Chicanos.”

Furthermore, around here a lot of Chicanos have figured out that when towns go 95+% Hispanic, they’re effectively ruined. We have two towns here like that here – Parlier and Mendota. In both of them, you may as well be living in Mexico.

They suck so bad in many ways that many Hispanics are starting to leave since there “are not enough Whites left to keep the place civilized,” more or less in their own words. So the Hispanics need Whites around, at least a few of us. When the Whites all leave, Mexico creeps in. And that’s what the Hispanics came here to escape from.

Now! Once the illegals are here, it is another story. Does the Democratic Party want to legalize them to get future voters? Maybe. But the last bill that hit Congress would not have legalized them for 18 years. That’s a long time to wait for voters.

More probably, the Dems support amnesty out of liberal ideology and in an effort to get Hispanic votes. If you come out against illegals, you screw yourself out of the Hispanic vote. If you want their votes, you go pro-illegal, ideology be damned. As the Hispanic vote increases, terrifyingly, mass amnesties look like more and more of a sure thing.

Another reason liberals support illegals is due to sympathy. Many liberals think it is cruel especially to break up the families of the illegals. This take on the issue especially effects females. Many others think there is no way to deal with the issue but via amnesty. Others (usually Jews) think anti-illegal = White racism. They don’t like White racism, so they go pro-illegal.

If you are on the Liberal-Left, you must support the illegals. If you don’t, you are slammed, shamed, and shunned in some pretty cruel ways. You get called racist, fascist, Nazi, KKK, reactionary, pig, hater, bigot, all sorts of stuff.

Liberal-Left types are sensitive people, and their whole worldview is made up in part by not being any of those things above. To get called names like the above is really jarring and painful for leftwingers, and I suspect many Lib-Lefties are simply bullied into supporting illegals. There are a number of Leftists who refuse to speak with me anymore in part due to my heresies on these matters. It is still painful for me to think of how they called me racist, fascist, Nazi, etc. and how they refuse to speak to me anymore.

Obviously, not just neocons and conservatives but the entire US business sector, supports the illegals for cheap labor.

In addition, here in California, many Whites with money support illegals. We joke that as soon as you buy a house, you start supporting illegals. All of a sudden you have all this yardwork to be done, and many White homeowners around here want to hire cheap illegal alien labor to work around their homes. On the other hand, many lower class, poor and working class Whites totally despise illegals since they have destroyed the low end job market in the state.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

This article was originally posted on VDARE. I am reposting it here for your edification. I don’t agree with everything here. For instance, I support the education of illegal alien kids, and I support treatment of illegal aliens in emergency rooms.

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced the anti-illegal alien SB 1070, indicated he would like to introduce a bill to deny birthright citizenship on the state level. Legislation is already pending in Texas and Oklahoma plans on following suit as well. A number of U.S. Senate Candidates, including Rand Paul, are making birthright citizenship an issue during the campaign. A June 3 Rasmussen poll found that 58% of US voters opposed giving birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens while only 33% supported it.

In the past, the usual suspects just dismissed birthright citizenship as a fringe issue. But now they are getting worried there appears to be a concerted attempt to push back.

Recently, both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune ran simultaneous Op Eds defending birthright citizenship—by Harvard Professor Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively.

Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.


Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to prohibiting the detention of illegal aliens who have children(any children, not just American citizen children)except in “exceptional circumstances.” [H.R. 4321. Title I, Sec. 162]


Myth 2: Birthright citizenship does not encourage illegal immigration

Chapman argues:

“One study cited in Peter Brimelow’s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim.

It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than 4%.

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.


Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]


Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making ‘False Claims’ Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]


Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship.

And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • more state laws;
  • a moratorium on immigration, and
  • abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Source: VDARE.com.

One Party, Two Wings

It’s simply nuts that the Obama Democrats are some sort of a socialist or Communist political party, as the lunatic reactionaries in the Republican Party insist. These people are out of their minds. As socialists and Communists, would we not be the first folks to be cheering on our savior Barack? And why would we not do so? We would pretend that he is just another pro-corporate, anti-worker politician, if he were a real Leftist, why?

We are not so devious. It is the Right that is devious.

The truth is that there is one political party in the US, the Corporate Party. It has two wings, both anti-people, anti-worker, anti-society and anti-nation. The liberal wing is called the Democratic Party. The conservative wing is called the Republican Party.

The Corporate Party always has a minority project of:

  1. The Rich
  2. The upper middle class
  3. The corporations

Their project is in favor of these folks and opposed to:

  1. Society at large
  2. The public interest
  3. Investors
  4. The national interest and the nation itself
  5. The environment
  6. The consumers
  7. The workers
  8. The middle and working classes
  9. The low-income and the poor

The Corporate Party project is always an eternally class project. The dilemma of the Corporate Party is how to get the majority of the 2nd group to oppose their interests and their class interests in order to support the first group and harm themselves in the process.

The Corporate Party do this via a stupefying array of nonstop lying, bullshit, dissembling, sophistry, code words, trickery, linguistic games, psychological warfare and brainwashing, nonsense, crap, religion, racism, homophobia, sexism, bigotry, jingoism, ultranationalism, and whatever other silliness they can dream up. To do this, they utilize the entire media, which they generally control under capitalism.

It takes a lot of thinking to figure out, first of all, that you are in the second group and that the first group is lying to you, and there’s almost no one around to help you put the jigsaw together, so most folks in the second group just fall for it.

Part of the problem is that the Corporate Party brainwash most folks in the 2nd group into believing that the 1st and 2nd groups do not even exist, hence there is no class struggle. If that fails, they try to convince the 2nd group that they are actually members of the 1st group! There’s no one around to help you wade through this tsunami or horseshit, so most in the 2nd group just fall for it.

In the midst of this, we have an interesting development called the American Third Position Party. It’s really the closest thing to a White nationalist party in the US today, although they do not have a separatist platform. That they advertise themselves as a party for White Americans means that they are willing to blow off 35% of the population, which is disturbing. Third Positionism is really just a form of fascism, and the American3P group is not even that 3rd Positionist. For instance, they are pretty cool on socialism.

What’s frightening is that the American3P Party is probably one of the most pro-worker and anti-corporate parties in the US today. The Left parties can’t possibly be pro-worker as they are committed to Open Borders, which is de facto anti-worker.

It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when, amidst a colossal economic downturn, the only parties with a pro-worker project are the fascists.

Thinking historically, remind of you of anything? Yikes.

African Immigrants in Europe – Is The Camp Of The Saints Coming True?

In the comments section, the brilliant James Schipper notes:

Some white countries are not very attractive, but whites can create attractive places, while so far we have not seen one black-dominated country that even remotely resembles Switzerland. This means that, it there is freedom of movement between black-dominated and white-dominated countries, there will be a massive flow from the former to the latter.

Europe has now around 700 million people and low fertility while black Africa has around 800 million and high fertility. Already there is constant illegal immigration from Africa into Europe. If nothing is done to stop this, Europe may eventually become a mainly black continent. I think that the white nationalists are quite right to warn about that.

James’ comment is absolutely right-on. This is exactly what is occurring in Southern Europe as we speak. He’s also correct that only the WN’s and the Right seem to be raising a fuss about it.

The entire European Left has gone insane on this question, and the Far Left, such as Italian Maoists who regularly send me communiques, are the most deranged of all. The Italian Maoists’ main issue seems to be to let all of the African illegal immigrants stay in Italy and get legalized. They’re obviously pro-Open Borders as the whole Western Far Left is. So they’re basically advocating a mass invasion of Italy by Black Africa, at which point Italy will become unrecognizable and will transition to a Black country. I can’t put into words what a terrible idea this is.

To which tulio responded that most Africans want to stay in Africa, and there are probably more Whites in Africa than Africans in Europe. Sure, but the Whites in Africa are not a problem and if anything, probably help the place out. Mass movement of poor, uneducated Africans into Europe is another matter altogether.

So the fact the flow goes in both directions is sort of irrelevant as it’s good in one direction for the hosts and bad in the other.

Clearly, not all Africans in Europe are bad news. A friend of mine is from Togo. He is one of the most brilliant people I have ever known, and he is Black as the night. He went to Morocco, got a degree there (and had a great time as a Catholic in a Muslim country) then went to France since he spoke French. He went to more college classes in France and graduated with honors. He was instantly snapped up by an IT firm.

This guy is so smart that he regularly works with MIT graduate students in computer science on IT stuff that is so cutting edge that I can’t make heads or tails of it. He now has a nice job in Brittany, France, and he is usually in a corporate meeting of some sort. He’s also been very popular with the White girls in France, but that’s another matter. He managed to get his sister into France too. Guys like Coco are great for France, but most Africans in Europe are not like this guy.

It’s true that most Blacks are staying in Africa, but African (Black African, not North African) immigration mostly to Southern Europe is seriously out of control. It’s kind of sad in a way because a lot of them are coming on boats, and they have to turn them back. The boats are coming to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Malta, etc. Malta at this point is so overrun it’s almost a disaster zone. Black Africans are all over Ibiza, filling up the Internet cafes with Nigerian scammers. Almost all of the Black Africans in these cafes are Nigerian criminals.

The Black African population in Italy in Greece is a huge problem like the illegal Hispanics in the US. The countries are dominated by liberal fuckheads so they don’t want to kick them out, but the Africans can’t really live there legally. Everyone knows they are illegals, but no one really does anything about it. Kind of like this stupid-ass country! A lot of the Africans are just squatters and whatnot. Many of the Nigerians have formed criminal gangs in Italy, where the Mafia is now whacking them off as competition.

The Europeans are too nice for their own good, kind of like us.

Mass camps of immigrants are in the north of France trying to make it to the UK, where the welfare pickings are a lot better. They periodically make mad rushes for the boats to the UK. Police come in and tear down the illegal camps, but they set them right back up again. Black Africans in France are already a serious problem, and they are committing tons of crime, especially rape, including gang rape (the Black and Muslim specialty crime).

It’s sad and pitiful that these boats are heading to Europe but they really need to be turned back. Have you heard of the book The Camp of the Saints? It really is something like that, and it’s happening as I write this.

In West African nations like Senegal, boats regularly leave for Spain and Portugal.

As an aside, White nationalists like to ridicule Africans by saying that they were too stupid to even figure out how to get to Madagascar, but this is apparently not true. They did get to Madagascar a long time ago, but then I guess they forgot how to build boats to go there anymore.

That is, there was an ancient hunter gatherer population of Blacks (Mikea) who could only have gotten there by boats when the Indonesians landed, but the more modern agricultural Blacks in Africa at the time did not have the maritime knowledge to figure out how to get there.

At any rate, my point is these historical arguments are sort of stupid. Who the F cares how backwards East Africans were 1,700 years ago?

My point is that nowadays anyway, even totally backwards West African Blacks are capable of building and steering boats that take them all the way from Senegal to Spain. Not bad. The take home point is that pre-contact Africans may have been backwards, but post-contact Blacks are much more advanced. That they are more advanced due to contact with other cultures or even White cultures is not that relevant. Cultural diffusion happens!

Dutch Left Grows a Brain

Incredible, a Western Leftwing party with the sense to oppose mass immigration on non-racist and purely economic  and pro-worker grounds. Mass immigration of labor from low wage countries to high wage countries is a disaster for the workers of the high wage country. Duh. Yet the entire Western Left is still screaming for Open Borders.
Suppose I am a member of a Left party in a low wage country. Why should I support Open Borders there? On the one hand, my best workers take off to high wage countries for higher wages. I guess they send some money home if we are lucky, but how does this help develop the economy of my low wage country.
Further, I bet even low wage countries have to deal with lots of immigrants from even lower wage countries flooding in. Sure, Romanians get to go to the UK and make big bucks, but how does the mass emigration our best and brightest help grown the Romanian economy? Besides, there are always workers from Ukraine or Africa or wherever trying to flood into Romania to make what to them is big bucks.
I understand that India has a huge problem with illegal immigrants. From where? From Bangladesh. I guess things are so horrible in Bangladesh that workers pour across the border to head to the paradise called India, where I suppose they can undercut Indian workers. That’s a scary thought. You mean Bangladeshi workers work for 5 cents an hour and that undercuts Indian workers at 10 cents an hour. Good God.
There’s no end to the nightmare of this “free movement of labor” crap and it’s hard to see how anyone but the capitalist businessmen benefit.
If anything, this shows that we need to drive a stake through the heart of Marxist “internationalism.” It’s based on some future borderless socialist Kumbaya utopia that’s not on the horizon. When I die in 30 years, this utopia won’t be one step closer. So why base current policy in the capitalist world on the whimsical fancies of a Dreamworld?

The Left Supports Racial Separatism in the US

Just not for Whites!
I dig this blog, but I have issues with Western Maoists guys for the usual reasons. White nationalists may be interested to note that they support ethnic secessionism in the US! Just not for Whites. They support the execrable Aztlan Chicano secessionist movement in the US and the Black secessionist movement in the US South, which aims to create a state out of the US Black Belt (map here).
They support these absurd causes because supposedly Blacks and Hispanics are both oppressed minorities in the US, hence have the right to self-determination according to Marxist (specifically, Leninist and Stalinist) theory.
I figure if you’re going to give Blacks and Chicanos the right to secede, why not give Whites the right to secede too? Some other questions remain unanswered. Would the Blacks and Hispanics have the right to throw all the Blacks and Hispanics out of the Black and Hispanic states?
I assume these guys are completely hostile to White nationalism, but it’s interesting that they see both US Blacks and Hispanics are members of oppressed nations. I guess Whites don’t get to secede because they are not an “oppressed minority?”
The independent Black state in the South would be a disaster. The whole place would probably turn into some combination of Detroit plus the Mississippi Delta.
Being an oppressed minority in the US is the best thing that’s ever happened to US Blacks. We’ve gotten rid of slavery and Jim Crow, and racism has been declining for 45 years since the Civil Rights Act. Anywhere else on Earth, they would be worse off.
Want to go back to Africa? Didn’t think so. Want to move to those wonderful Black countries in the Caribbean? Nope. How about moving to that wonderful state of Brazil, where they got rid of racism once and for all? Guess not. Blacks in the US and the rest of the West have it better than anywhere else on Earth. Granted, we could certainly treat them better, and that’s a task that anti-racists at their best moments continue to hammer away at.
But Blacks and Whites in the US evolved in a symbiotic relationship. I don’t know about Whites needing Blacks, but I’m convinced that US Blacks need US Whites. They’d fall apart without us. An independent Black state in the South would be a massive fail.
Segregation in the past did not work for Blacks. Ask how many Blacks want to go back to segregation? The independent Black state would in effect be a return to segregation. What happens when you pull all the Whites out of a city and return to an effectively segregated Black ghetto? No matter what it’s called, Oakland, East St. Louis, the Bronx, Harlem, South Central LA, South Side Chicago, Newark, Gary, Hammond, Baltimore, Washington DC, New Orleans, the result is much the same. A Black ghetto, with sky-high rates of crime and every other social pathology you can think of.
We can argue on and on about why Black ghettos end up the way they are, but the fact is that they are what they are. When Blacks are more spread out and not living in heavily-Black communities, it seems obvious to me that they do better, though I haven’t seen any studies yet.
For example, my city is 4% Black. A lot of these Blacks are pretty ghetto, and a lot of them are low income. Nevertheless, the Blacks here cause few problems if you ask me. You do see them getting arrested a lot, but it’s for stuff like driving on a suspended license, pimping, prostitution, domestic violence, stuff like that. The local Blacks do not commit much street crime. There is no wave of thefts, beatings, rapes and murders attributable to them. For one, their numbers are so small that Black gangs have not taken hold, but crucially neither has Black “culture”, which with these folks would just be ghetto culture.
But could you imagine what this city would be like if it was 67% Black and not 4%? I would not even want to live here! The Black crime rate would be much higher than it is. Integration is great for Blacks. Segregation is so bad for them, it’s downright deadly. Hence the Black state is doomed to fail.

A Cancer Called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

I go on a lot about the White nationalists on here, but the truth is that these racist characters are seriously irrelevant to US politics. Even most White racists in the US, I am certain, want nothing whatsoever to do with them.
From the veneration or apologia for Hitler, to rampant anti-Semitism, to insane proposals like deporting all non-Whites, setting up White separatist enclaves, states or whatever, to worship of Nordicism to the detriment of all the other Europeans, to opposition to miscegenation, friendship and dating with non-Whites, the movement has been a serious failure from Day One and will continue to be one, since its ultra-radical ideas simply do not resonate with most Whites in the US.
In fact, most US Whites are ethnocentric and do believe that US White culture is worth saving. A recent poll showed that 73% of US Whites broadly said they were proud to be White and that White culture was a value worth defending.
One would think that a pro-White movement would be so moderate as to represent the views of this 73%, most of whom are probably integrationists, support non-White immigration, oppose White separatism and eviction of non-Whites, are open to interracial friendship, dating and marriage if not in themselves and in others, and are broadly non-racist to anti-racist sorts of folks.
One would think a logical movement could appeal to this 73% of Whites, most of whom don’t like to see our race dragged through the mud with incessant hate speech and hate propaganda, nor do they appreciate the many hate crimes against our people and the great deal of discrimination that our people face.
Forget it.
No pro-White movement will ever be sane enough to appeal to these folks. The problem is not just the fact anyone in the US that stands up and says they are pro-White nowadays is probably a ferocious racist.
The problem also lies in maniacal organizations like the SPLC, named in the title.
Any expressions of White ethnocentrism are immediately pounded by SPLC attack dogs as White Supremacism. Not only that, but the SPLC hearts illegal aliens. Seriously, passionately. I think the leadership actually wants to invite the illegals under the sheets with them, such is their love for the criminal invaders, the dregs of Mesoamerica.
Every single organization that has tried to fight against illegal immigration has been slammed by the SPLC scum as “racist” and “White supremacist.” Their acolytes in the elite media echo along. Such that even reasonable Whites now think anti-illegal immigration means dangerous, wild-eyed nativist racism. Why do they think this? The elitists in the MSM told them so.
Check out this sorry story here. Your average US Jew is sane, and many of them are open to the sane notion that millions of illegal aliens in the US really sucks. The Jewish elite in the Organized Jewish Community won’t have any of that. The message is so popular with ordinary Jews that they are shutting it down.
The illegal immigration debate has always shown a vast elite – commoner disconnect in the US. Ordinary, working class and middle class Americans totally hate illegal immigration. Surveys show that adds up to 70-80% of the US. Yet a political – media – wealthy elite that runs our media and political parties has been lording it over us commoners and frankly the US proletariat. They can’t get enough illegals. As the elitists control the US, the opinions of 75% of Americans get tossed out with the trash.
The mainstream anti-illegal organizations go to extreme lengths to keep their noses clean. They try to ferret out all the racists in their organizations. On their websites, racist commentary is deleted and the commenters are banned. They try very hard to make this an anti-racist movement. Sure there are racists in the movement. Of course racists hate illegals just like anyone else. Who would have thought otherwise?
The truth is that while White nationalism is ludicrous joke in the US (Thank God!) the PC Nazis in the SPLC have essentially colonized American thought with their Cultural Marxist poison. It’s spread to the entire White West.
The SPLC’s line is that some ghost-like White racists threaten the US. That’s hilarious. The truth is that assholes like the SPLC and their Identity Politics buddies are more dangerous to, and have done more harm to, this nation that the White nationalists could in countless centuries.

SPLC Supports American Workers Against Fake Guest Workers

One of the last things the Bush Administration did before it left, among the other horrible rules it made, was a new rule dealing the H-2B guest workers. It made it easier to bring these fake workers into the country and it also made it much easier to abuse them while they were here.
I am on the Southern Poverty Leadership Center (SPLC)’s mailing list, and I recently got a mail from them. It said, “Stop the Abuse of Workers!” Since the SPLC has never shown me that it cared anything about American workers, or Americans period, as long as they are White Americans, I figured this was some BS about stopping the “abuse” of arresting illegal aliens who have absolutely no fucking right whatsoever to be in my country.
My surprise. On opening the mail, the SPLC detalied the new Bush Administration rule that is leading to some grotesque abuse of these guest workers, who shouldn’t even be in this country in the first place.
That’s wrong right there, but what surprised me was next. The SPLC then said that the whole H-2B program is subject to outrageous abuses, in most cases being used to bring in fake “guest workers” after first firing the Americans, or brining in fake guest workers when there are plenty of Americans willing to fill the jobs.
Along with Paul Craig Roberts’ post in Counterpunch that I detailed earlier that discussed how the Stimulus Bill allows businesses to use stimulus money to fire American workers and bring in fake guest worker replacements, these are the first times I have ever heard the Left in the US actually stand up for American workers against immigrants of any sort.
There is definitely competition between US workers and refugees, guest workers and illegal aliens.
In that contest, the Left has nearly always treasonously sided with the glorious foreigners against the real Americans.
For a political spectrum that is supposed to be for American workers, I can’t hide my outrage at this.
This is because the Left in the US is increasingly made up of non-Whites. Many non-Whites are either immigrants or their children, and they automatically side with a pro-immigrant position to the point where frankly most immigrants and their children seem to be out and out Open Borders and Mass Amnesty maniacs and traitors.
So the glorious “immigrant” has become something of a sacred cow with the Left. Let’s keep in mind that most immigrants nowadays are non-Whites, and the idiot Left in the West is based on the notion perpetrated by what I call “Anti-White Studies”. Also note that most US workers are White. The US Left has a well-disguised contempt for White workers, probably because they think they are infected with “White privilege” or are a bunch of racist rednecks who need to be knocked down a few pegs.
However, I note that no one on the US Left has dared to take on the precious illegals. Fake guest workers, who are after all legal, can be slammed, but the glorious illegal alien invaders are a protected class to be cherished and promoted at all costs. The day when the US Left lifts one finger against illegals will be an interesting day indeed.